San Ramon Valley Unified School District (PERB A075E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
SAN 	RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED
SCHOOL DI$TRICT,
and
UNITED 	PUBLIC 	EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 	390, 	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO,
and
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND 	ITS 	SAN RAMON
CHAPTER NO. 	6 5 .
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________________ )
Case No. 	SF-D-33
(R-29B)
PERB 	ORDER NO. 	Ad-75
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
October 	4, 	1979
Appearances: 	Mattie 	Scott, 	Attorney 	(Breon, 	Galgani 	& Godino) 	for
San Ramon Valley Unified 	School 	District; 	Robert 	J. 	Bezemek,
Attorney 	(Van Bourg, 	Allen, 	Weinberg& Roger) 	for 	United 	Public
Employees, 	Local 	390, 	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO; 	and Mary 	H. 	Mocine, 	Attorney 	.
(CSEA) 	for 	San 	Ramon 	Chapter 	No. 	65.
The 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its 	San Ramon
Chapter 	NO. 	65 	has 	appealed 	to 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
from 	an 	order 	of 	the 	San 	Francisco 	Regional 	Director blocking 	a
decertification 	election 	in 	the 	San Ramon 	Unified 	School 	District.
On 	October 	l, 	1979, 	subsequent 	to 	filing 	these 	appeals, 	the
United 	Public 	Employees, 	Local 	390, 	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO, 	the 	exclusive
representative 	of maintenance, 	grounds, 	custodial, 	and 	transportation
employees 	in 	the 	District, 	and 	against 	whom 	the 	decertification
petition was 	filed, 	requested 	PERB 	to 	proceed with 	the 	decerti-
fication 	election. 	This 	request 	was 	made 	notwithstanding 	the
outstanding unfair 	practice 	charges 	it 	had 	filed 	and 	its 	own
previous 	request 	for 	the 	Regional 	Director's 	blocking 	order, 	the

unfair 	charges 	having 	been 	the 	basis 	of 	the 	Regional 	Director's
blocking 	order. 	In 	its 	request, 	Local 	390 	states 	that 	it 	understands
that 	the 	PERB will 	not 	entertain 	objections 	to 	the 	decertification
election based upon 	conduct 	alleged 	in 	the 	pending 	unfairs.
The 	Board 	itself 	consents 	to 	vacating 	the 	blocking 	order 	and
therefore 	finds 	these 	administrative 	appeals 	to 	be moot. 	Accordingly,
they 	are 	hereby 	dismissed.
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
by
JJ .. STEPHEN 	BARBER
Executive Assistant 	to 	the 	Board
-2-

&?Ji.Tl 0, C.U.lft)ltNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
s~n Pronc:is.:;o Regional Office
'77 Post St., 9th Flacr·
:1:rft Fran~is.cc, Cclifen'lic 	94108
(415) 557-1350
May 	30, 	1979
San 	Ramon 	Valley 	Unified 	School 	Diatriet
699 	Old 	Orchard 	Drive
D.anville, 	CA 	94526
Attn: 	Ronald 	M. 	Loos, 	Coord-inator 	of 	Personnel 	Services
united 	Public 	Employees, 	Local 	390, 	SEIU, 	AFL-CIO
c/o Van aourg, 	Weinberg, 	Allen 	&.Roger
4! 	Pell< 	Stre~·t
San 	Francisco, 	CA 	94102
Attn: 	Robert 	J. 	Sezemek, 	Attorney
California 	School Employees 	AssociAtion
and 	!t:a 	San Ramon 	Chapter 	No. 	65
564· S: North 	Civic Drive
Walnut 	Creek, 	CA 	945~6
Attn: 	Margorie 	Ott, 	rield 	Representative
Re: 	San 	Ramon Valley 	Unified 	School. District, 	SF-D-33 	{R-29B)
Dear 	?nt~tested 	Partiasi:
on 	March 	10, 	1977, 	a 	consent 	election 	for 	a 	unit 	of
maintenance, 	grounds, 	custodial 	and 	tr~n.sporta.tion 	employees 	in
the 	San 	Ramon 	Valley 	Unified 	Dia tr ic·t waa 	conducted 	between
Public. Employees 	union 	Local 	1, 	Service 	Employees 	International
Union 	Local 	390·, 	Teamsters 	Loc::al 	853, 	California 	School
Employees 	Association 	Chapter 	65, 	and 	no 	representation .. 	A
majority 	of 	the 	valid 	ballots 	were 	¢ast 	for 	Service 	Employees
Intarnational 	union 	Local 	390. 	On 	March 	18, 	197?, 	Service
Employees 	International 	Union, 	Local 	390 	was 	certified as 	the
exclusive 	representative. 	A written 	agreement 	covering 	wages,
hours 	and 	other 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of 	employment was 	&ntered
into 	on 	December 	13, 	1977, 	and 	thereafter 	ratified 	by 	ehe
District's 	Board 	of 	!du:cat.ion and members. 	o! 	the 	onion.
&?Ji.Tl 0, C.U.lft)ltNIA

...
Artiele 	XVII 	of 	the 	agreement,· "t>urationll 	states 	thift:
The- 	term• of 	th is 	contract 	s-hall 	be 	from 	the
date 	of 	its 	executiQn 	~rougb 	June 	30, 	1979~
On.less 	the 	District 	or 	Union-notifies 	the
other 	p·art1 	in 	writing 	no 	later 	than
Aprill, 	1979 1 	of 	its 	desire 	to 	terminate 	or
amend 	this 	contraet, 	it 	shall 	continue 	in
effect 	for 	addttional 	one-year 	periods.
Additionally, 	Article 	XV 	•completion 	of 	Agreem~nt: 	· Savings
Clauser" 	subsection 	"c• 	states 	that:
Either 	patty 	may 	notify 	the 	other 	in 	writing
no 	late•r 	than April 	l, 	1978, 	of 	its 	intent
to 	mG>dify 	or 	amend 	only 	the 	provisions.
concerning 	salaries 	and·benefit3 	tor
1978-1979.,
·
Pursuant 	to 	subsection 	C above, 	the 	union 	notified 	the
di:str ict 	on 	or 	about 	Ma.reh 	27, 	1978 ,._ and 	the 	first 	meeting 	took
place 	on 	or 	about 	June 	2, 	1978. 	On 	~ebruary 	lS, 	1979, 	the
di~triet 	and 	th~ 	union 	agreed on 	several 	modifications 	to 	the
'77-7' 	agreement, 	including 	extending 	the 	expiration 	date 	ot
the 	contract 	to September 	30,·1979.
On• March 	6, 	1979, 	California 	School 	Employees 	Asaociation
and 	its 	San 	Ramon 	Chapter 	No. 	65 	filed 	with 	the 	San 	Francisco
Regional 	Office 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	a
deeertif ica.tion 	petition 	pursuant 	to 	Board 	regulation 	33240
rtagarding 	the 	maintenance/operations 	unit 	in 	the 	District·.. 	The
petition 	was 	accomp-anied 	by proof 	of 	support 	alleging 	that 	at
least 	30 	percent 	of 	the 	employees 	in 	the 	established 	unit 	no
longer 	wished 	to 	be 	repra~ented 	by 	United 	Public 	Employees
Local 	390 	and 	in.stead, 	designated 	CSEA 	and 	itsr 	San 	Ramon 	Valley
Chapter 	No. 	65 	as 	the-ir 	exclusive 	barga·ining 	:representative.

ISSUES
l) 	Does 	th~ 	collective 	negotiating 	agreement bet~een 	the
District 	and 	Service 	Employees 	!nternational Union 	Local 	390
bar 	CSEA's 	decertification 	petition?
2) 	Has CSBA 	and 	its 	San 	Ramon 	Chapter 	No. 	65 	demonstrated
a 	sufficient 	showing 	of 	support?
DISCUSSION
'!'be 	statutory 	•contract 	bar• 	language 	contained 	in
Government 	Code 	Section 	3544. 7 (b) ( 1) · is quite 	similar 	to 	the
contract 	bar 	doctrine 	developed 	by 	t_!ie 	National Labor 	Relations
Board 	(hereafter 	NLRB). 	Although 	there 	is 	no 	statutory
provision 	included 	in 	the 	Labor 	Management 	Relations 	Act 	aa
amended 	(baraat!ter 	LMRA) , 1· the 	NLRB 	holds 	generally 	that 	a
valid 	colleetiv~ bargaining 	agreement 	will 	act 	as 	a 	bar 	to 	a
representation 	eleetion. 2 The 	rule 	is 	self-imposed 	and
discretionary .. 3
129 	u.s.c. 	15 	let.seq.
2:tnitially, 	the 	bar 	wae 	for 	a 	"reasonable 	period" 	and
there 	was 	no 	specific 	period 	in 	which 	to 	file 	a 	petition. 	In
1939, 	the 	National 	sugar 	Refining 	co., 	(1936) 	10 	NLRB 	1410,
[3 	LRRM 	5441, 	a 	one 	year 	contract 	was 	held 	to 	bar 	•an
investigation 	of 	repr:eeentation 	until 	such 	time 	a:s 	the 	contract
is 	about 	to 	expire 	and a 	question 	exists 	as 	to 	the 	proper
rapra1H1nta. t: i ve. •
In 	1958, 	in 	Pacific 	coast 	Association 	(1958) 	121 NLRB 	990,
[42. LR.RM 	1477] .. 	the 	contract 	bar 	waa 	extended 	to 	two 	years.
Alao 	at 	this 	time, 	the 	NLRB 	created 	an 	•open 	period"' 	in 	whioh 	a
3

Fcctnotes cont.inued 	from 	previous 	page.
pet.ition. could 	be 	fil.ed. 	Originally, 	the 	•open period•
extended 	from 	130 	days 	to 	90 	days 	prior 	to 	the 	expiration 	date
of 	th& 	contract. 	Oeluxe Metal 	Furniture Co. 	(1958) 	121 	NLRB
995, 	[42 	LR.RM 	1420]. 	In 	1§6~ 	the 	1 open-per!od• 	was 	changed 	to
extend 	from 	90 	to 	60 	day~ 	prior 	to 	the 	expiration 	date 	of 	the
oontracto 	In 	General 	Cabel 	Corp., 	(1962) 	139 	NLRB 	1123, 	(31
L:RRM 	1444], 	the 	contract 	bar 	was 	extended 	to 	three 	yearsc
While 	this 	Board 	is 	net 	bound 	by NLRB 	decisions, 	cognizance
is 	taken of 	caae 	law 	developed 	under 	the 	LMRAe 	!ife 	Fi9ht@r!
Union 	v. 	City 	of 	Vallej~ 	(1974) 	12 	Cal.3d 	608 	£87 	LRRM 	2453] ~
~weetwater · Union lUgh 	Schoel· Distr ic~ 	( ll/23/76) 	mB 	Decision
Section 	3544.7(b} (l} 	provides 	for 	the 	dismisaal 	of 	a
decertification 	petition. and 	bars 	an 	election 	d~ring 	the 	term
of 	a 	collective 	negotiatin9 	a9:eement. 	section 	3544 .. 7 (b) (1)
states:
No 	election 	shall 	be 	held 	~nd 	the 	petition 	shall
be 	di:smizHed 	wheneveri.
{l) 	There 	is 	currently 	!n 	effect 	a 	lawful
written 	agreement: 	negotiated 	by 	the 	public 	school
employer 	and 	another 	employee 	organization
covering 	any employees 	included 	in 	the 	unit
described 	in 	the 	request 	for 	rec09nition, 	or
unless 	the 	request 	for 	recognition 	is 	filed 	less
than 	120 	days, 	but more 	than 	90 	days, 	prier 	to
the 	expiration 	date 	of 	the 	agreement.
When 	the 	parties 	execute 	a 	collective 	negotiations
agteement,· section 	3544a7(b) (1) 	generally 	bars 	exte.rnal
organizations 	from 	filing 	decertification 	petitions 	except
3Local 	l545i 	United 	Brotherhood 	of 	Carpenters 	(2nd 	Cira,
1960) 	286 	t2d, 	[47 	LRRM 	2304].

.,..,
during 	the 	period 	running 	less 	than 	120 	but 	not 	more 	than 	90 ·
days 	prior 	to 	the 	expiration.of_ the 	agreement. 	Therefore,
during 	the 	life 	of 	the 	agre@ment 	the 	parties 	are 	enabled 	to
achieve 	stability 	in 	their 	laboe 	relations.
The 	NLRB 	has developed a 	"premature 	extension" 	doctrine
which 	essentially 	dictates· that· when· an· amf)ndment · or· a 	new
contract 	containing 	a 	latter 	termination 	date 	is 	executed
during 	the 	tet~ of 	an 	exiati"g 	contraet, 	the 	former 	will 	act 	as
a 	bar 	to 	an 	elee·tion 	only 	for 	the 	remainder 	of 	the 	period 	when
the 	prior 	c:ontract 	would 	have beert such 	a 	bat. 	Se$ The
-----Lord
B~ltimore 	Press·, 	Inc., 	144 	NLRB 1376, 	New England 	Telephone 	&
!!legrapb Company, 	179 	NLRB 	531. 	Therefore, 	when 	a 	•premature
extsnsionu 	is 	executed, 	the 	appropriate 	time 	foe 	the 	filing 	of
a 	rival 	petition 	is 	during 	the 	window 	or 	open 	period· prior 	to
the 	expiration 	date 	of 	the 	origina,l 	contract. 	The 	statutory
window 	period 	provided 	by 	Government 	Coda 	section 	3544 o•7 (b) {l)
is 	leas 	than 	120 	days 	but more 	than 	90 	days 	prior 	to 	the
expiration 	of 	the 	contract.
In 	H. 	L. 	Klien 	Inc. 	(1964) 	148 	NLRB 	656 	[57 	LrutM 1073] 	the
NLU 	reasoned 	that:
The 	primary purpose 	of 	the
premature-extent!on 	rule 	is 	to 	protect
petitioners 	from 	being 	faced 	with
prematurely 	executed 	contracts 	at 	a 	time
when 	the 	petitioner 	would 	normally 	be
permitted 	to 	file 	a 	petition.
5

They 	further 	reasoned 	in 	New 	En9land 	Telephone 	& Telegraph 	co.
(1969) 	179 	NLlU:l 	531 	[72 	LRRM 	1389] 	that:
In 	determining 	when 	a -petition 	has 	been
timely 	filed:" 	the 	Board 	has 	oonai!Jtently
sought 	to 	provide 	guidance 	as 	to 	the
appropriate 	time 	to 	organize 	for 	and 	seek 	a
change 	of 	representatives, 	and 	to 	secure 	to
employee·s 	the 	right 	to 	change
representatives 	at· .raasona·ble 	intervals ..
The Board 	is 	of 	the 	view 	that 	atability 	in
labor 	relations 	is 	taeilitated 	by 	using
reasonable 	guides 	as 	to 	timeliness 	of
pet:.i t ions·. 	To 	th is 	end, 	we 	have 	long 	held
that 	a 	new 	contract 	for 	a 	longer 	period
signed 	during 	the 	term 	of 	a 	previously
executed 	agreement, 	at 	a 	time 	when 	that
prior 	agreement would 	bat 	a 	petition, 	can
itself 	prevent 	the 	processing 	of 	a 	rival
petition 	only 	fer 	the 	remainder 	of 	the
period 	when 	the 	prior 	eont.ract 	would 	have
been 	such 	a 	bar. 	It 	has 	been 	held 	that,
where 	such a peematur• extffnsion OClcurs, 	the
proper 	time 	for 	the 	filing 	ot 	a 	rival
petition-in 	order 	to 	promote 	such 	stability
and 	employee 	protection 	is 	the 	30-d·ay 	period
between 	the 	90th 	day 	and 	the 	60th 	day 	prior.
to 	the 	expitation 	date 	of 	ta 	original
contract 	of 	3 	years 	or 	less 	duratione
However, 	the-Board's 	rule 	is 	not 	an 	absolute
ban 	on 	premature 	extensions, 	but 	only
subject.is 	sueh 	extensions 	to 	the 	condition
that 	if 	a ~~!S!:m 	is 	filed 	during 	the 	open
Eerioa 	calculated 	trom the 	expiration 	date
of 	the 	old 	contract, 	the 	~remature 	extension
will 	not 	be 	a bar.
The 	NLRB 	has 	held 	that 	a 	contract 	is 	not 	prematurely
extended 	when 	e~ecuted 	n1) 	during 	the 	60-day 	insulated 	period
preceding 	the 	terminal 	date 	of 	the 	old 	eont::act; 	2) 	after 	the
terminal 	date 	of 	the 	old 	contract 	if 	notice 	by 	one of 	the
parties 	forstalled 	its 	automatic 	ren~wal 	or 	it 	contained 	no
renewal 	provision: 	or 	3) 	at 	a 	time 	when 	the 	existing 	contract
6

would 	not 	have 	barted 	an 	election 	because 	of 	other 	contract 	bar
rules.• 4
In 	the 	instant 	case, 	the 	paz:ties 	had 	negotiated 	an
agreement 	with 	~n 	expiration 	date 	of 	June 	30, 	1979. 	During
meetings 	held on 	or 	about ~une 	2, 	1978, 	through
February 	15, 	1979, 	regarding 	aalar ies 	and 	beriefi ts 	for 	1978-·79,
they 	also 	agreed 	to 	extend 	the 	expiration 	date 	of 	the 	contract
until 	September 	JO~ 	1979.
The 	decertification 	petition 	was 	filed 	by 	CSEA 	and 	its 	.
San R.amcn 	Chapter 	No. 	65 	on 	March 	6, 	1979, 	during 	the 	window
period 	of 	the 	prior 	agteement •. 	It 	ia 	hereby determined 	that
the 	exten·tion 	of 	the 	prior 	contrae.t 1a premature 	and 	does 	not
conatitute 	a 	contra.ct 	bar. 	Therefore, 	the 	decertification·
petition 	&•ubmitted 	by· CSE.A 	is 	t.ill'lely 	filed ..
~. 	Showing of 	SuEport
Review 	of 	the 	showing 	submitted 	by CSEA 	and 	its 	San 	Ramon
Chapter 	No. 	6!5 	in 	suppottt 	of 	their 	peeition 	has 	resul't:ed 	in 	the
admini~trative 	determination 	that 	it 	is 	sufficient 	to 	meet 	the
requirement 	of 	section 	33030(b) 	and 	33240(c} 	of 	PBRB's 	Rules
and 	Regulations.
At 	the 	present 	t.ime·, 	however, 	United 	Public 	Employee.a,
.
Local 	390 	has 	filed 	an 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	against 	the
dis tr iot, 	SP'-CE-350, 	wb ioh 	will 	block 	an 	eleetio•n 	until 	it
isieaolved, 	or 	waived 	by 	the 	charging 	party. 	An 	informal
4 	Oeluxe Metal 	Purniture 	Co. 	(1958) 	121 	NLRB 	995 	[42
L.lUUI 	1420].
7

conference 	was 	held 	on 	May 	7, 	1979, 	and 	a 	formal 	hearing 	is 	set
for 	June 	11, 	1979, 	at 	the 	nistrict 	office. 	At 	th& 	time 	the
char9~ 	is 	either 	wavied 	or 	resolvedt 	an 	election 	will 	be
~irac·ted 	if 	appropriate ..
Conclusions 	and Order
l. 	The 	c:ontra:ct between 	the 	San 	Ramon Valley Onified 	School
District 	and 	United Public 	Employees 	Local 	390 	does 	not 	serve
as; 	a 	bar 	to 	the 	decertification 	petit'ion 	filed 	by 	California
School 	Employees 	Associat.ion. and 	its 	San 	Ramon 	Chapter 	No. 	65.
2., 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its 	San· Ramon
Chapter 	No. 	65 	has 	demonstrated 	a 	sufficient 	showing 	of 	support
pursuant 	to 	section· 33030{b) 	and 	33240(e) 	of 	P!R13 8 S 	Rules 	and
Regulations.
3. 	An 	election 	will 	he 	directed, 	if-appropr ia.te, 	to 	det·armi.ne
which 	organization? 	if 	any, 	will be 	certified 	as 	the 	exaltisive
representative of 	the 	mainten,ance, 	grounds, 	custodial, 	and 	.
transportation 	unit 	when 	the 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	is 	either
waived 	or 	resolved~
An 	appeal 	of 	this 	decision 	may 	be 	made· 	within 	lO 	calendar
days 	of 	service 	of 	this 	decision 	by 	filing 	a 	statement 	ot 	the
facts 	upon 	which 	the 	appeal 	is 	based 	with 	the 	PERB 	E:x:eou.tive
As~istant 	to 	the 	Board, 	Mr. 	Stephen Barber, 	at 	923 	12th 	Street,
Suite 	201, 	Sacramento, 	CA 	95814. 	Copies 	of 	any 	appeal 	must 	be
served 	on 	all.other 	parties 	to 	this 	action 	with 	an 	additional
copy 	to 	the 	San 	Francisco 	Regional 	Officec
Ver:v 	trulv 	voni::§,
James 	w. 	·J:amro
nagional 	Director
JWT: AIM: red

P:RDOF 0? SER.VICE BY MAIL· - 	C.C.P. 	l013a
I 	dec:lara 	that.. I 	am employed in the county of SAN FRANCISCO. 	I 	am over the age
of aighteen .ycari:1t and. not: a party_ to 	~he within entitled cause; 	my business
address 	is 177 POST STREET, 	9~h FLOOR, 	SAN, FRANCISCO, 	CALIFORNIA 94109.
n -------------Ma,-	O 	30, 	1.979 	I 	served the attached 	Administrative
_D_e_e_is_i_o_n_ 	~n the
_P_a:r_t_i_e_s_l_i_s_t_ed_b_e_l_ow_ 	b:,- placing a true copy thereof
eclosad in a sea.led envelope with po•tage thare011 fully prepaid, 	in the United
States-&i1 1 ·at San. Francisco .adf.b:essed as follows:
________________________
..
____________
Ronald. M~ 	Loos
Oita~inator 	ot Personnel Services
San Ramon Uni~ied School 	District
699 Orchard Drivs
Danville, 	CA 	94526.
Robert 	J. 	Bez-emek.
Vtm. Bourg, Weinberg, 	Allen & Roger
45 Polk Street
San Francisco, 	CA 	94102
'---
Marjq;.-ie. Ott, 	Field Repres'.tntative
Cali.tornia School Emplo-yee·s Association
and its 	San 	Ramon Cha:pte~ No. 	65
564 B North Civic 	Drive
Walnut Creek, 	CA 	94596
I 	decla.ra undet' penalty of pt:rjury th.at 	the foregoing is t.rus md carnet" 	and
that 	thi~ 	declarat:ion was executed. on 	~ 	;_o_,_l_9_?_	9_________ •
SAN FRANCISCO~ 	California.
Richard 	O. 	Dea.ring
(Type or print name)
-- 	M_a:s	__
at
Richard 	O. 	Dea.ring
(Type or print name)