California State University (Statewide University Police Association) (PERB A174H)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
STATEWIDE 	UNIVERSITY 	POLICE
ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case 	No. 	LA-C-135-H
PERB Decision No. 	HO-U-335-H
Administrative 	Appeal
PERB Order 	No. 	Ad-174-H
August 	24, 	1988
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance; 	William B. 	Haughton, 	Attorney, 	for 	the 	Trustees of 	the
California 	State 	University.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Craib and Porter, 	Members.
DECISION
CRAIB, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before 	the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or 	Board) 	on appeal by the 	Trustees 	of
the 	California 	State 	University 	(CSU) 	of 	the 	attached
administrative 	determination by PERB's 	Los 	Angeles 	Regional
Director 	finding 	that 	CSU 	is 	not 	in 	compliance with 	the 	order
in PERB Decision No. 	HO-U-335-H 	(Case No. 	S-CE-28-H). 	The
proposed 	decision 	in 	Case 	No. 	S-CE-28-H was 	not 	appealed 	to 	the
Board 	and, 	thus, 	became 	a 	final 	decision to which 	the parties
are bound. 	The 	Regional 	Director 	found 	that 	the 	order 	requires
systemwide posting, 	rejecting CSU's 	assertion 	that 	it had 	fully
complied 	with 	the 	order by posting 	the 	required 	notice 	to
employees 	only at 	its 	Sacramento campus.
~

2
We have 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record, 	including 	the 	Regional
Director's 	administrative 	determination 	and 	CSU's 	appeal
thereof. 	We 	affirm 	the 	Regional 	Director's 	determination 	that
the 	order 	requires 	systemwide 	posting 	and 	we 	adopt 	his
determination as 	our 	own.
In 	an 	analogous 	case 	arising under 	the 	Educational
Employment Relations 	Act 	(EERA or Act) 	(Gov. 	Code Sec. 	3540 et
seq.), 	the Board 	recently endorsed 	the propriety of 	systemwide
posting 	in 	the 	context 	of 	a multi-campus 	school 	district 	(Los
Angeles Unified School District 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	659):
The 	District views 	the order 	as 	overbroad
and 	suggests 	posting 	at 	Coldwater 	Canyon
Elementary 	School 	only 	is 	more 	appropriate.
We disagree. 	First, 	we note that the
respondent 	in this 	case 	is 	the 	District,
though 	the 	unlawful 	activity was 	carried out
by 	its 	agent 	at 	one particular 	school. 	The
purpose 	of 	a posting 	requirement 	is 	to
inform 	all 	who 	would 	naturally be 	concerned
(i.e., 	employees of the District, 	as well as
management 	and 	supervisory personnel 	who
carry out 	District policies) 	of 	activity
found 	to be 	unlawful 	under 	the 	Act 	in order
to provide 	guidance 	and prevent 	a
reoccurrence. 	The 	furtherance of 	the
central purpose of the EERA, 	harmonious
labor 	relations, 	depends upon awareness of
what 	the 	statute demands of all parties. 	In
light 	of 	our 	remedial 	authority under 	the
EERA 	(see, 	particularly, 	sections 	3541.3(i)
and 3541.5(c)), 	we 	find that 	the purposes of
that Act 	are best 	effectuated by district-
wide posting 	in cases 	such as 	the 	instant
one.
Similarly, 	in the instant case, 	the respondent is CSU, 	not
merely the 	Sacramento campus. 	Moreover, 	the violation to be
remedied by 	the 	posting 	order 	centers 	on 	contract 	language
applicable 	to the entire bargaining unit, 	whose members 	are
2

l
3
employed 	at 	all 	of 	the 	CSU campuses. 	Consequently, 	we 	find 	that
in 	this 	case 	systemwide posting best 	effectuates 	the purposes 	of
the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act 	(HEERA).1
ORDER
It having been 	found 	that 	the 	Order 	in PERB 	Decision No.
HO-U-335-H 	appropriately 	requires 	posting 	of 	the 	Notice 	To
Employees 	at 	all 	campuses 	of 	the 	CSU, 	and 	CSU having 	failed 	to
post 	said Notice at all but 	its 	Sacramento campus, 	CSU is hereby
ORDERED 	to post 	the 	Notice 	to 	Employees 	at 	all 	other 	campuses
within 	35 	days 	after 	this 	Decision 	is 	no 	longer 	subject 	to
reconsideration 	pursuant 	to 	PERB 	Regulation 	32410.2 Such
posting 	shall be 	maintained 	for 	a period 	of 	thirty 	(30)
consecutive workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps 	shall be 	taken 	to ensure
that the Notice 	is not reduced 	in size, 	altered, 	defaced or
covered by 	any 	other 	material.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member 	Porter 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
1HEERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3560 	et 	seq,
2PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California
Administrative 	Code, 	title 	8, 	section 31001 et 	seq.
3

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
STATEWIDE UNIVERSITY POLICE ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
TRUSTEES 	OF THE 	CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY,
Respondent.
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-C-135
(PERB Decision
No. 	HO-U-335-H;
S-CE-28-H)
ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION
(2/19/88)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Mastagni, 	Holstedt, 	Chiurazzi and Curtis by
K. 	William Curtis 	for 	the Statewide 	University Police
Association; William B. 	Haughton, Attorney, 	for the Trustees of
the California 	State University.
Before Robert R. 	Bergeson, Regional Director
The 	instant 	administrative 	determination concerns 	the
requirements of 	the Order 	in Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) 	Decision No. 	HO-U-335-H 	(Decision).
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On November 	30, 	1987, 	the Statewide University Police
Association 	(SUPA) 	notified 	PERB's Los Angeles Regional Office
that 	the Trustees of the California State University 	(CSU) 	had
failed 	to post 	the 	Decision-mandated Notice 	to Employees
(Notice) 	at all CSU campuses. 	Rather, 	CSU had purportedly
limited 	its posting 	to 	only 	the 	Sacramento campus. 	SUPA
contended 	that 	since 	bargaining 	unit members 	were 	employed 	at
all 	19 CSU campuses, 	the Notice 	should be posted at 	all

•
2
campuses. 	On December 	8, 	1987, 	PERB 	received a letter 	from CSU
admitting 	that 	it 	had 	limited 	posting 	to 	only 	the 	Sacramento
campus, 	but disputing 	SUPA's 	contention 	that 	the Decision Order
required 	that 	it post 	at 	all campuses.
On January 	22, 	1988, 	PERB's 	regional compliance officer
advised 	the parties 	of 	the propriety of 	SUPA's position and
directed 	that 	CSU comply with 	the 	Decision Order 	by posting 	the
Notice at all campuses. 	On February 4, 	1988, 	PERB received a
letter 	from CSU 	requesting 	that 	the 	Los Angeles Regional Office
reconsider 	its position and 	find CSU to 	be 	in 	full compliance
with the Order.
DISCUSSION
CSU argues 	that 	since 	the unlawful activity 	found 	in 	the
Decision was restricted to the 	Sacramento campus, 	posting 	of
the Notice to Employees 	should 	be 	similarly 	limited. 	The plain
language of the Order 	dictates 	a different 	finding, 	however.
In relevant part, 	the Order 	states:
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Based 	upon 	the 	foregoing 	findings of 	fact
and conclusions of 	law, 	and the entire
record of this case, 	it 	is 	found that the
California State University, 	Sacramento, 	has
violated 	section 	3571(c) 	and, 	derivatively,
(a) 	and 	(b) 	of the Higher Education
Employer-Employee 	Relations Act. 	Pursuant
to section 	3563.3 of the Government Code, 	it
is hereby ORDERED that 	the University, 	its
governing 	board 	and 	its 	representatives
shall;
B. 	Within 	ten 	(10) 	workdays of service of 	a
final decision in this matter, 	post at all
N

3
locations where 	notices 	to 	unit members 	are
customarily posted, 	copies 	of 	the Notice
attached hereto 	as 	an Appendix. 	The Notice
must 	be 	signed 	by an authorized 	agent of 	the
University, 	indicating 	that 	the University
will comply with 	the terms of 	this order.
Such posting 	shall 	be maintained 	for 	a
period of thirty 	(30) 	consecutive workdays.
Reasonable 	steps 	shall 	be 	taken to ensure
that 	the Notice 	is not 	reduced 	in size,
altered, 	defaced or 	covered 	by any other
material. 	(Emphasis added.)
"University" 	is 	defined at page one 	of 	the Decision as
"[T]he 	Trustees of 	the 	California 	State 	University," 	not merely
the California State University, 	Sacramento campus. 	Consistent
with this definition, 	the Trustees of the CSU 	is the named
respondent on 	the Decision 	heading 	and the Notice 	to Employees
contains 	a 	signature 	line 	for 	an 	authorized agent of 	the
Trustees of the CSU, 	not CSU, 	Sacramento. 	Contrast California
State University, 	Sacramento 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	211-H and
California State University, 	Hayward 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No.
231-H. 	In 	those cases, 	specific campuses of CSU were 	the named
respondent and, 	more 	importantly, 	PERB's orders directed that
employee 	notice posting 	be 	limited 	to work 	locations 	on 	those
campuses. 	Such specificity 	is conspicuously absent 	from the
instant Decision. 	Finally, 	it is undisputed that members of
the 	bargaining 	unit 	represented 	by 	SUPA are 	employed 	at 	all 	19
CSU campuses. 	Thus, 	it 	is found that CSU is required by the
Order 	to post 	the Notice 	to Employees 	at CSU's 	other 	18
campuses.
W

CONCLUSION/ORDER
It 	having 	been 	found 	that 	the Order 	in 	PERB Decision
No. 	335-H requires posting of 	the Notice to Employees 	at all
campuses 	of 	the CSU, 	and CSU having 	failed 	to post 	at other
than 	its Sacramento campus, 	CSU is 	hereby ORDERED to post at
all 	other 	campuses 	the Notice 	to Employees within 	fifteen days
of 	the date of 	service of 	this 	administrative determination.
•
RIGHT TO APPEAL
An appeal 	of 	this decision 	to the Board 	itself may be made
within 	ten 	(10) 	calendar 	days following 	the date of 	service of
this decision 	(PERB 	regulation 	32360). 	To be timely filed, 	the
original and 	five 	(5) 	copies of any appeal must be 	filed with
the Board 	itself 	at 	the 	following 	address:
Members, 	Public Employment Relations Board
1031 	18th Street
Sacramento, 	California 	95814-4174
A document 	is considered 	"filed" 	when 	actually 	received
before 	the close 	of 	business 	(5:00 p.m.) 	on the 	last day 	set
for 	filing, 	". 	. 	. o r when sent by telegraph or certified or
Express United 	States mail, 	postmarked 	not 	later 	than 	the 	last
day 	set 	for 	filing 	. . . " 	(regulation 	32135.) 	Code 	of Civil
Procedure 	section 	1013 	shall 	apply.
The appeal must 	state 	the 	specific 	issues of procedure,
4

5
fact, 	law or 	rationale 	that 	are 	appealed and must 	state 	the
grounds 	for 	the 	appeal 	(regulation 	32360(c)). 	An appeal will
not 	automatically prevent 	the 	Board 	from proceeding 	in 	this
case. 	A party 	seeking 	a 	stay 	of 	any activity may 	file 	such 	a
request with 	its administrative 	appeal, 	and must 	include 	all
pertinent 	facts 	and 	justification 	for 	the 	request 	(regulation
32370).
If 	a 	timely 	appeal 	is filed, 	any other party may file with
the Board 	an original and 	five 	(5) 	copies of a response to 	the
appeal within 	ten 	(10) 	calendar days following 	the date of
service of the appeal 	(regulation 32375).
Service
All 	documents 	authorized 	to be 	filed herein must 	also 	be
"served" 	upon all parties 	to the proceeding 	and on the Los
Angeles Regional Office. 	A 	"proof 	of service" 	must 	accompany
each copy 	of 	a document 	served 	upon 	a party of 	filed 	with 	the
Board 	itself 	(see 	regulation 	32140 	for 	the 	required 	contents
and a sample 	form). 	The document will be considered properly
"served" 	when personally delivered 	or deposited 	in 	the
first-class mail postage 	paid 	and 	properly 	addressed.
Dated; 	Robert 	R. 	Bergeson
Regional 	Director
C . 189
5