Inglewood Unified School District (PERB A204E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
INGLEWOOD 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
INGLEWOOD 	CLASSIFIED ASSOCIATION,
Employee 	Organization,
and
CALIFORNIA 	PROFESSIONAL 	EDUCATION
EMPLOYEES,
Employee 	Organization,
and
CALIFORNIA 	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Exclusive 	Representative.
)
)
)
) 	Case 	Nos. 	LA-D-242
LA-D-243
(LA-R-289)
Administrative 	Appeal
PERB 	Order 	No. 	Ad-204
March 	28, 	1990
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	by 	Howard
Lawrence, 	Organizing 	Director, 	for 	Inglewood 	Classified
Association; 	Van 	Bourg, 	Weinberg, 	Roger 	& 	Rosenfeld 	by 	David 	A.
Rosenfeld, 	Attorney, 	for 	California 	Professional 	Education
Employees.
Before 	Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Craib 	and 	Camilli, 	Members.
DECISION
CAMILLI, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board) 	on 	appeal 	by 	the 	California
School 	Employees 	Association 	(CSEA) 	of 	a 	Board 	agent 1 s
administrative 	determination 	(attached 	hereto) 	denying 	CSEA's
motion 	to 	dismiss 	the 	decertification 	petitions 	filed 	by 	the
Inglewood 	Classified 	Association 	(ICA) 	and 	the 	California
Professional 	Education 	Employees 	(CALPRO).

The
	Board
	agent
	denied
	the
	motion, 	having
	found
	that
	the
decertification 	petitions
	were
	timely
	filed
	and
	that
	the
	proofs
of 	support
	were
	valid.
	We
	affirm 	the
	Board
	agent's 	denial 	of
	the
motion,
	in
	accordance
	with
	the 	discussion
	set
	forth
	below.
DISCUSSION
CSEA
	argues
	that
	the
	unit
	size
	used
	to
	compute
	the
	validity
of
	the
	proofs 	of 	support
	is
	inaccurate
	because
	the
	employee
	list
provided
	by
	the
	District,
	which
	was
	used
	to
	determine
	unit 	size,
does
	not 	include
	substitutes,
	who 	CSEA
	argues
	ought
	to
	be
included.
1 CSEA
	further
	argues
	that
	ICA 1 s
	proof 	of 	support
	is
invalid
	because
	the 	signatures
	on
	the
	authorization
	cards
	were
obtained
	through 	fraud
	and
	misrepresentation.
PERB
	Regulation
	32380
2
reads,
	in 	pertinent 	part,
	as
	follows:
The
	following
	administrative 	decisions
	shall
not
	be
	appealable:
(b)
	Except 	as 	provided
	in 	section
	32200, 	any
of
	the
	following
	interlocutory 	rulings
	which
may
	be
	raised
	when
	the 	case 	as
	a
	whole
	is
appealed
	to 	the
	Board
	itself:
1CSEA
	does
	not 	contend
	that
	all
	substitutes
	should
	be
included, 	because
	substitutes,
	as
	a
	whole,
	are 	not 	included
	inthe 	bargaining 	unit.
	Rather,
	it
	argues
	that 	significant
	numbers
of
	classified positions
	have 	been
	filled
	by
	substitutes 	in
violation
	of
	CSEA's
	collective 	bargaining 	agreement, 	and
	should,
therefore,
	be 	counted 	as 	bargaining 	unit
	members.
2PERB
	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	AdministrativeCode,
	title
	8, 	section
	31001
	et
	seq.
2

(4) 	A determination 	that 	a 	petitioner's 	proof
of 	support 	is 	adequate 	.
Regulation 	32380 	was 	amended 	on 	March 	25, 	1989, 	to 	add,
inter 	alia, 	subsection 	(4). 3 The 	reason 	for 	this 	new 	section was
to 	avoid 	lengthy 	and 	unnecessary 	delay 	in 	the 	election 	process.
It 	is 	important 	to 	note 	that 	CSEA 	is 	not 	foreclosed 	from 	raising
the 	issues 	presented 	herein 	on 	appeal 	to 	the 	Board. 	The 	issues
of 	unit 	size 	and 	fraud 	can 	be 	raised 	by 	objections 	to 	the
election 	once 	it 	has 	taken 	place. 4
Thus, 	under 	PERB 	Regulation 	32380, 	the 	two 	issues 	discussed
above 	are 	not 	appealable 	to 	the 	Board 	at 	this 	time. 	Therefore,
the 	Board will 	not 	entertain 	the 	merits 	of 	the 	arguments 	raised
by 	CSEA. 	Consequently, 	the 	Board 	agent's 	determination 	that 	the
proofs 	of 	support 	are 	adequate 	will 	stand.
CSEA 	also 	argues 	that 	a 	contract 	bar was 	in 	effect 	at 	the
time 	the 	decertification 	petitions 	were 	filed. 	Additionally, 	it
contends 	that 	ICA 	is 	not 	a 	valid 	employee 	organization. 	The
Board 	agent 	properly 	addressed 	these 	issues. 	CSEA 	does 	not 	raise
any 	new 	arguments 	in 	its 	appeal. 	Therefore, 	we 	adopt 	the 	Board
agent's 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law 	on 	these 	issues.
3Subsections 	(b) (3), 	(b)(4) 	and 	(c) 	were 	also 	added 	at 	that
time.
4rn 	its 	appeal, 	CSEA 	requested 	a 	stay 	of 	the 	election. 	The
election 	has 	already 	taken 	place 	and 	the 	ballots 	have 	been
impounded 	pending 	resolution 	of 	this 	case. 	The 	Board, 	therefore,
need 	not 	address 	this 	request.
3

ORDER
The 	Board AFFIRMS 	the 	administrative 	determination 	denying
the 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	and 	ORDERS 	the 	election 	shall 	go 	forward 	in
accordance 	with 	PERB 	regulations.
Chairperson 	Hesse 	and 	Member 	Craib 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
4

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
INGLEWOOD
	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
INGLEWOOD
	CLASSIFIED ASSOCIATION,
Employee
	Organization,
and
CALIFORNIA 	PROFESSIONAL 	EDUCATION
EMPLOYEES,
Employee
	Organization,
and
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Exclusive
	Representative.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 
Case
	Nos.
	LA-D-242,-243
(LA-R-289)
ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION
September
	29,
	1989
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____________________ )
Investigation
	of 	the
	decertification 	petitions 	filed 	in
	the
above-referenced 	cases
	has
	resulted 	in 	the 	administrative
determination
	that
	an
	election 	shall
	be
	conducted
	to 	determine
the 	organization,
	if
	any,
	to
	be
	certified
	as 	exclusive
representative
	of 	the 	bargaining
	unit 	in 	question.
	The
	motion
	to
dismiss
	filed
	by
	the 	current 	exclusive 	representative 	is
	denied,
for 	reasons
	which
	follow.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On 	May
	23, 	1989, 	and 	June 	1, 	1989, 	Inglewood
	Classified
Association/CTA/NEA
	(ICA)
	and
	California 	Professional 	Education
Employees
	(CALPRO),
	respectively, 	filed 	decertification 	petitions
with 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB
	or 	Board)

pursuant 	to 	PERB 	regulation 	32770. 	Each 	is 	seeking 	to 	replace
California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	and 	its 	Inglewood 	Chapter
#16 	(CSEA) 	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of 	a 	unit 	of
classified 	employees 	of 	the 	Inglewood 	Unified 	School 	District
(District). 	The 	District 	and 	CSEA were 	given 	an 	opportunity 	to
respond 	to 	the 	petitions; 	the 	District was 	asked 	to 	provide 	lists
of 	employees 	in 	the 	bargaining 	unit 	to 	be 	used 	to 	determine 	the
adequacy 	of 	the 	proof 	of 	support 	filed 	by 	ICA 	and 	CALPRO 	in
support 	of 	their 	decertification 	petitions. 	The 	District 	filed 	a
response 	and 	provided 	the 	lists 	as 	requested. 	CSEA 	also
responded, 	raising 	issues 	requiring 	resolution 	before 	any
election 	could 	be 	directed.
CSEA 	argues 	that 	the 	unit 	size 	is 	larger 	than 	stated 	by 	the
petitioners 	and, 	more 	importantly, 	larger 	than 	shown 	by 	the 	lists
of 	unit 	employees 	provided 	by 	the 	District. 	CSEA 	also 	asserts
that 	both 	petitions 	are 	barred 	by 	a 	contract 	in 	effect 	prior 	to
the 	time 	the 	petitions 	were 	filed. 	In 	addition, 	CSEA 	raises
issues 	which 	concern 	only 	the 	petition 	filed 	by 	ICA: 	CSEA
contends 	ICA 	is 	not 	an 	employee 	organization within 	the 	meaning
of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA), 	that 	ICA 	may
not 	represent 	employees 	in 	the 	proposed 	unit 	because 	its
affiliate 	currently 	represents 	employees 	who 	supervise 	these
employees, 	and 	finally, 	that 	ICA 	procured 	the 	proof 	of 	support
submitted 	with 	its 	petition 	through 	misrepresentation.
ICA 	and 	CALPRO 	filed 	general 	denials 	of 	CSEA's 	allegations.
Thereafter, 	by 	letter 	dated 	August 	1, 	1989, 	all 	parties 	were
2

given
	a
	final
	opportunity
	to
	submit
	facts
	supported	
by 	evidence
in
	support
	of
	their
	respective 	positions.
	Following
	a
	review
	of
the
	parties'
	factual
	submissions,
	on
	August 	25, 	1989,
	an
	order
issued 	affording
	CSEA
	an
	opportunity
	to
	show
	cause
	why
	its
	motion
to
	dismiss
	should 	not
	be
	denied
	and
	why
	an
	election
	should
	not
	be
directed.
	That
	order 	to
	show
	cause
	is
	expressly 	incorporated
within
	this
	administrative
	determination.
DISCUSSION
Contract
	Bar
Among
	the 	findings 	in
	the 	order
	to
	show
	cause
	was
	the
conclusion
	that
	there
	was 	no
	dispute
	of
	material 	fact
	involving
any
	of 	the 	issues 	raised
	by
	CSEA,
	however,
	CSEA's
	response
	to
	the
order 	challenges
	that
	conclusion.
	CSEA
	argues
	that 	"[its]
contention
	that
	a
	successor
	contract
	was
	finalized
	on
	May
	18,
1989,
	is
	still
	in 	dispute."
	CSEA
	further
	states 	that
	an
evidentiary
	hearing
	would
	provide 	testimony
	which
	would
	show
	that
the
	District's
	negotiator
	had
	authority 	"to 	enter 	into
	a
	final
and
	binding
	agreement 	with
	CSEA
	on
	the 	exact 	terms
	that
	were
agreed
	to
	on
	May
	18, 	1989.
11
	Such
	facts
	would,
	indeed,
	be
material
	were
	it
	not 	for 	the 	conclusion
	stated 	in
	the 	order 	to
show
	cause,
	which
	was
	that
	ARTICLE 	XXIX
	of 	the 	contract 	agreed 	to
by
	the 	District
	and
	CSEA
	required
	ratification
	as
	a
	condition
precedent 	to 	contractual 	validity.
	Assuming
	the 	correctness 	of
that 	conclusion, 	the 	only 	material 	fact
	became
	whether 	or 	not 	the
contract
	had 	been
	ratified 	at 	the 	time 	the 	decertification
petitions
	were
	filed
	and
	the 	proof 	of 	support 	perfected.
3

CSEA
	does
	not 	appear
	to 	dispute
	the 	conclusion
	that
	the
current
	agreement
	required
	ratification
	by
	the
	District
	and
	CSEA.
CSEA
	suggests,
	however,
	that
	the 	analysis
	which
	led 	to
	that
conclusion 	erroneously 	ignored
	the
	language
	in
	ARTICLE
	XXII
	of
both
	the
	previous
	and
	existing
	agreement:
Ratification
	of
	Additions
	or
	Changes:
	Any
	additions
	or
changes
	in
	this
	Agreement
	shall
	not
	be
	effective
	unless
reduced
	to
	writing
	and
	signed
	by
	both
	parties.
CSEA
	argues
	that
	ratification,
	as
	that
	word
	is
	used
	in
	ARTICLE
XXIX,
	is
	"defined"
	by
	the
	foregoing
	provision.
	This
interpretation
	simply 	does
	not
	comport
	with
	the 	ordinary
	and
plain
	meaning
	of
	the
	language
	of
	that
	provision,
	and 	must
	be
rejected
	for 	the
	reasons
	stated 	in
	the 	order 	to
	show
	cause.
Unit
	Size
The
	order
	to
	show
	cause
	also 	stated 	that
	there
	appeared
	to
be
	no
	basis
	upon
	which
	to
	alter
	the
	lists
	of
	unit
	members
provided
	by
	the
	District
	for
	use
	in
	checking
	the
	adequacy
	of 	the
proof
	of
	support.
	CSEA
	argues
	that
	its
	position
	on
	this 	issue
has 	been 	misunderstood
	by
	PERB. 	CSEA
	reiterates 	that
	the
District
	has 	and
	continues 	to
	illegally
	exclude
	employees 	from
the 	bargaining 	unit.
	CSEA
	seeks
	resolution 	of
	this 	issue
	prior
to
	an
	election,
	noting
	that
	a
	determination
	that
	the 	unit
	is
indeed
	significantly 	larger
	would 	impact
	the 	requisite 	proof 	of
support, 	potentially 	obviating 	the
	need
	for
	an
	election.
	CSEA
also 	raises
	the
	possibility 	that 	failure 	to 	resolve 	the 	issue 	at
this
	time 	will 	lead 	to
	an 	excessive
	number
	of 	challenged
	ballots.
4

The
	order
	to
	show
	cause
	expressed
	the 	preliminary
determination
	that
	no
	basis
	appeared
	to
	exist
	for
	requiring
changes
	to 	the
	lists
	provided
	by
	the
	District.
	The
	rationale
	for
that
	determination
	was
	neither
	the
	result
	of
	a
	lack 	of
understanding 	of
	CSEA's
	argument
	nor
	due
	to
	a
	failure
	to
appreciate
	the
	need
	to
	have
	proper
	employee
	lists.
	CSEA's
further
	argument 	does
	nothing
	to
	undermine
	that
	preliminary
determination.
	Accordingly,
	the
	lists
	provided
	by
	the
	District
will
	be 	used
	to
	determine
	the 	proof 	of 	support 	submitted
	by
	ICA
and
	CALPRO.
Proof 	of 	Support
CSEA
	seeks
	invalidation
	of
	ICA's
	proof 	of 	support
	on
	the
ground
	that
	authorization
	cards
	were
	procured 	through
misrepresentation.
	CSEA
	argues
	that
	the
	rejection
	of
	its
	claim
as
	set
	forth 	in 	the 	order 	to
	show
	cause
	is
	erroneous 	under
	the
decision
	of 	the 	National
	Labor
	Relations
	Board
	(NLRB)
	in
Bookland.
	Inc.,
	221
	NLRB
	35,
	90
	LRRM
	1492
	(1975).
	A
review
	of
Bookland
	reveals
	that,
	while
	a
	single
	card
	was
	invalidated,
	two
others
	were
	not 	invalidated.
	The
	NLRB
	based
	its
	decision
	upon
the
	totality
	of 	circumstances 	surrounding 	the 	card
	solicitation.
The
	''totality
	of 	circumstances" 	surrounding 	the
	solicitation
	of
the 	invalidated 	card 	included 	evidence 	not 	only
	that
	the
solicitor
	made 	a
	misrepresentation 	in
	response 	to
	a
	direct
question
	by
	the 	signer, 	but 	also 	evidence
	that 	the 	signer
	had 	not
read 	the 	card. 	In 	the 	instant 	case, 	there 	are
	no
	allegations 	of
facts 	revealing 	the 	circumstances 	surrounding 	specific 	card
5

signings, 	but 	only 	the 	bare 	allegation 	of 	the 	misrepresentation
itself. 1 No 	circumstances 	similar 	to 	those 	in 	Bookland 	were
presented 	here, 	and 	thus, 	even 	if 	Bookland 	were 	controlling, 	it
is 	distinguishable 	and 	not 	persuasive.
CSEA 	has 	failed 	to 	provide 	any 	sufficient 	basis 	upon 	which
to 	invalidate 	any 	of 	the 	cards 	submitted 	by 	ICA. 	In 	light 	of
that, 	and 	because 	the 	authorization 	cards 	submitted 	by 	ICA
clearly 	and 	unambiguously 	state 	that 	the 	signer 	authorizes 	the
ICA 	to 	act 	as 	the 	signer's 	exclusive 	representative 	for 	purposes
of 	meeting 	and 	negotiating, 	all 	cards 	which 	are 	properly 	signed
and 	dated 	shall 	be 	used 	to 	determine 	the 	sufficiency 	of 	ICA's
proof 	of 	support.
ICA 	Status
CSEA 	offers 	no 	additional 	argument 	in 	support 	of 	its
assertion 	that 	ICA 	is 	not 	an 	employee 	organization within 	the
meaning 	of 	EERA 	other 	than 	to 	opine 	that 	PERB's 	decision 	in
Jamestown 	Elementary 	School 	District 	(1989) 	PERB 	Order 	No. 	Ad-
187, 	will 	be 	overturned. 	For 	the 	reasons 	stated 	in 	the 	order 	to
show 	cause, 	CSEA's 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	ICA's 	petition 	on 	the 	ground
that 	it 	is 	not 	a 	valid 	employee 	organization 	is 	denied. 	CSEA's
motion 	to 	dismiss 	ICA's 	petition on 	the 	ground 	that 	it 	may 	not
1The 	evidence 	consists 	of 	two 	documents: 	a 	signed 	statement
from 	CSEA's 	Chapter 	president 	which 	relates 	what 	she 	had 	been
told 	concerning 	ICA's 	purpose 	in 	soliciting 	cards 	but 	does 	not
relate 	facts 	concerning 	a 	solicitation 	of 	her; 	and 	a 	statement
signed 	by 	five 	individuals 	stating 	they 	do 	not 	believe 	they
authorized 	"CTA/NEA" 	to 	represent 	them 	and 	revoking 	their
authorization 	cards 	on 	the 	ground 	that 	they 	were 	told 	by 	a
CTA/NEA 	representative 	that 	the 	sole 	purpose 	of 	the 	card 	was 	to
get 	information 	about 	the 	union.
6

seek
	to
	represent
	classified
	employees
	while
	its 	affiliate,
	the
ITA,
	represents 	teachers,
	is
	likewise
	denied
	for 	the 	reasons
stated
	in
	the 	order
	to
	show
	cause.
CONCLUSION
It
	is
	undisputed
	that
	CSEA
	was
	certified
	as
	the
	exclusive
representative
	on
	June
	6,
	1987.
	In
	light
	of
	that 	fact,
	and
	in
light
	of 	the
	conclusion
	that
	both
	petitions
	were
	filed
	and
	proof
of
	support
	perfected
	prior
	to
	the 	existence
	of
	a
	written
agreement
	between
	the
	CSEA
	and
	the
	District,
	these
decertification 	petitions
	were
	timely
	filed
	pursuant
	to
	PERB
regulation
	32776(b).
	Further,
	the 	proof 	of 	support 	submitted
	by
ICA
	and
	CALPRO
	is 	sufficient
	to
	meet
	the
	requirements 	of
regulation
	32770(b)(2).
	The
	criteria
	for
	a
	decertification
petition
	have,
	therefore,
	been 	met:
	An
	election 	shall
	be
conducted 	as
	soon
	as
	is
	practicable 	to
	determine
	the
organization,
	if
	any,
	to
	be
	certified
	as 	the 	exclusive
representative
	of 	the
	unit
	of
	classified
	employees.
	A PERB
representative 	will
	be
	contacting 	the
	parties 	shortly 	to 	discuss
the
	mechanics
	of 	the
	election.
Right
	of
	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:
7

MEMBERS,
	PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
1031
	18th
	Street,
	Suite
	200
Sacramento,
	CA
	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,
II
	or
	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,
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
	justifications
	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
Angelee 	regional 	office.
	A
	"proof 	of 	service"
	must 	accompany
each 	copy 	of
	a
	document 	served
	upon
	a
	party 	or 	filed
	with 	the
Board
	itself
	(see 	regulation
	32140
	for 	the 	required 	contents 	and
8

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.
Charles
	F. 	Mcclamma
Labor
	Relations
	Specialist

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
INGLEWOOD
	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
INGLEWOOD
	CLASSIFIED ASSOCIATION,
Employee
	Organization,
and
CALIFORNIA 	PROFESSIONAL 	EDUCATION
EMPLOYEES,
Employee
	Organization,
and
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Exclusive
	Representative.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
___________________ )
Case
	Nos.
	LA-D-242,-243
(LA-R-289)
ORDER
	TO
	SHOW
	CAUSE
August 	25,
	1989
On 	May
	23, 	1989, 	and 	June
	1, 	1989, 	Inglewood
	Classified
Association/CTA/NEA
	(ICA)
	and
	California 	Professional 	Education
Employees
	(CALPRO),
	respectively, 	filed 	decertification 	petitions
with
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(PERB
	or
	Board)
pursuant 	to
	PERB
	regulation
	32770. 	Each
	is
	seeking 	to 	replace
California
	School
	Employees
	Association
	and
	its
	Inglewood
	Chapter
#16 	(CSEA)
	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of
	a
	unit
	of
classified
	employees 	of 	the
	Inglewood 	Unified 	School
	District
(District).
	At
	the 	request 	of
	PERB,
	the 	District
	provided
	lists
of 	employees
	in 	the 	proposed
	unit 	for 	use 	in 	determining 	the
adequacy 	of 	the 	proof 	of 	support 	filed
	by 	ICA
	and
	CALPRO
	in
support 	of 	their 	petitions.

On
	June
	21, 	1989,
	CSEA
	filed
	a
	response
	to
	the
	petitions
which
	raises
	several 	issues 	requiring 	resolution
	before
	an
election,
	if
	any, 	can
	be
	ordered.
	CSEA
	argues
	that
	the
	unit
	size
is 	larger
	than
	represented
	by
	the
	petitioners
	and
	the
	District.
CSEA
	also 	asserts 	that
	the
	petitions
	are 	barred
	by
	a
	contract 	in
effect 	prior
	to 	the
	time
	the
	petitions
	were
	filed.
	CSEA
	also
raises
	issues
	which
	concern 	only
	the
	petition 	filed
	by
	ICA: 	CSEA
contends
	ICA
	is
	not
	an 	employee
	organization within 	the
	meaning
of
	the
	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Act
	(EERA),
	that
	ICA 	may
not
	represent
	employees
	in
	the
	proposed
	unit
	because
	its
affiliate
	currently 	represents
	employees
	who
	supervise
	these
employees,
	and
	finally, 	that
	ICA
	fraudulently
	procured
	the 	proof
of 	support
	submitted 	with
	its
	petition.
General
	denials 	to
	CSEA's
	allegations
	were
	subsequently
received
	from
	ICA
	and
	CALPRO.
	Thereafter,
	by
	letter
	dated
	August
1, 	1989, 	which
	letter
	is
	expressly 	incorporated 	within
	this
order,
	all
	parties
	were
	given
	a
	final
	opportunity 	to
	submit
	facts
supported
	by
	evidence
	in
	support 	of
	their
	respective 	positions.
Upon
	examination 	of 	the
	submissions 	of
	all 	parties,
	there 	appears
to
	be 	no
	dispute 	of 	material 	facts.
	The
	parties 	disagree 	only 	as
to 	the 	legal 	effect
	of 	the 	facts.
CSEA
	argues
	that
	the 	unit 	size 	is 	larger
	than 	represented
	by
the 	other 	parties
	because 	the
	District 	allegedly
	has 	placed
substitutes 	into 	vacant 	positions 	for
	a
	period
	beyond
	that
	which
is 	permitted
	by 	law.
	CSEA
	has
	made
	clear 	that
	it
	is
	not
contending 	that 	the 	unit
	does 	or 	should 	include 	substitute
2

employees. 	Rather, 	CSEA 	asserts 	that 	the 	lists 	of 	unit 	employees
submitted 	by 	the 	District 	should 	include 	those 	employees 	in
substitute 	positions 	whom 	the 	District 	wrongfully 	denied
positions 	in 	the 	classified 	service.
CSEA 	notes 	that 	it 	has 	been 	forced 	to 	approach 	the
District's 	practice 	on 	a 	case-by-case 	basis, 	and 	submitted 	as
supporting 	evidence 	a 	document 	in 	which 	the 	District 	agrees 	to
place 	certain 	named 	substitute 	employees 	into 	classified
positions. 	An 	examination 	of 	this 	document 	discloses, 	however,
no 	instance 	in 	which 	anyone 	is 	placed 	in 	a 	bargaining 	unit
position 	effective 	on 	or 	before 	the 	date 	the 	lists 	were
prepared. 1 The 	fact 	that 	there 	may, 	indeed, 	be 	more 	persons 	who
should 	have 	been 	or 	may 	be 	placed 	in 	the 	classified 	service 	is
not 	a 	matter which 	can 	be 	addressed 	in 	this 	proceeding. 	Only 	if
the 	persons 	were 	actually 	a 	part 	of 	the 	established 	unit 	should
they 	actually 	be 	counted 	for 	purposes 	of 	determining 	the 	size 	of
the 	unit 	at 	the 	time 	these 	petitions 	were 	filed. 	See 	State 	of
California 	(Department 	of 	Personnel 	Administration) 	(1985) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	532-S. 	There 	appears 	to 	be 	no 	basis 	in 	law 	or 	fact
requiring 	changas 	to 	the 	lists 	of 	unit 	members 	provided 	by 	the
District 	for 	use 	in 	checking 	the 	adequacy 	of 	the 	proof 	of
support.
1Further, 	even 	if 	all 	of 	the 	identified 	individuals 	had 	been
placed 	on 	the 	lists 	of 	unit 	employees, 	their 	numbers 	are
insufficient 	to 	adversely 	impact 	the 	petitioners.
3

CSEA's 	contention 	that 	these 	petitions 	are 	barred 	by 	the
existence 	of 	a 	contract 	is 	based 	upon 	Government 	Code 	section
3544.7(b) 2 which 	states 	in 	relevant 	part:
[n]o 	election 	shall 	be 	held 	and 	the 	petition 	shall 	be
dismissed 	whenever:
(1) 	There 	is 	currently 	in 	effect 	a 	lawful 	written
agreement 	negotiated 	between 	the 	public 	school 	employer
and 	another 	employee 	organization.
According 	to 	CSEA, 	an 	agreement 	was 	in 	effect 	on 	May 	18, 	1989,
which 	would 	constitute 	a 	bar 	to 	the 	petitions 	pursuant 	to 	this
provision. 	CSEA 	submitted 	a 	copy 	of 	a 	written 	agreement 	which
was 	initialed 	on 	May 	18, 	1989. 	That 	agreement, 	if 	"in 	effect" 	on
that 	date, 	would 	constitute 	a 	bar 	to 	the 	petitions, 	both 	of 	which
were 	filed 	subsequent 	to 	May 	18, 	1989.
This 	case 	presents 	a 	question 	similar 	to 	that 	addressed 	by
the 	Board 	in 	Downey 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1980) 	PERB 	Order 	No.
Ad-97. 	In 	that 	case, 	the 	Board 	concluded 	that 	it 	was 	unnecessary
to 	decide 	whether 	"signed 	off" 	provisions 	constituted 	a 	lawful
written 	agreement 	which 	would 	bar 	a 	decertification 	petition,
because 	the 	question 	of 	contract 	validity 	turned 	on 	whether 	the
contract 	had 	been 	ratified. 	The 	parties 	in 	Downey 	had 	agreed 	by
written 	ground 	rules 	to 	submit 	their 	agreement 	to 	ratification 	by
both 	the 	union 	and 	the 	District, 	and 	the 	Board 	concluded 	that 	"by
the 	terms 	of 	the 	parties' 	own 	agreement, 	the 	contract 	could 	not
become 	operative 	until 	it 	was 	ratified 	by 	both 	[the 	exclusive
representative) 	and 	the 	District."
2This 	section 	is 	made 	applicable 	to 	decertification
petitions 	by 	PERB 	Regulation 	32776(b).
4

The
	Board's
	decision 	in
	Downey
	was
	actually
	an
	expansion 	of
the
	rule
	adopted
	by
	the
	National
	Labor
	Relations
	Board
	in
Appalachian 	Shale 	Products
	Co.
	(1958)
	121
	NLRB
	1160
	(42
	LRRM
1506],
	which
	is
	as
	follows:
Where
	ratification 	is
	a
	condition 	precedent
	to 	contractual
validity
	by
	express
	contractual 	provision, 	the
	contract
	will
be
	ineffectual
	as
	a
	bar 	unless
	it
	is
	ratified
	prior 	to
	the
filing
	of
	a
	petition.
See 	San
	Francisco
	Unified
	School
	District
	(1984)
	PERB
	Decision
No.
	476.
	Application
	of
	this
	rule
	to 	the
	instant 	petitions
	means
that
	if
	the
	agreement
	negotiated
	by
	CSEA
	and
	the
	District
contains
	a
	provision,
requiring
	ratification,
	there
	could
	be
	no
bar
	until 	ratification
	was
	accomplished.
The
	agreement
	submitted 	as 	evidence
	by
	CSEA,
	and
	which
	CSEA
contends
	was
	in
	effect
	on
	May
	18, 	1989,
	contains
	an
	ARTICLE 	XXIX,
"TERM
	OF
	AGREEMENT,"
	which
	states 	in 	pertinent 	part:
This
	Agreement
	shall
	become
	effective
	as 	of
	ratification,
and
	shall
	continue
	in
	effect
	to
	and
	including
	June 	30,
	1992,
and
	from
	year-to-year
	thereafter
	.
CSEA
	argues
	that
	the 	foregoing 	language
	is
	not
	controlling,
	and
points 	instead 	to 	the
	prior
	agreement,
	which 	does
	not
	require
ratification.
	ARTICLE
	XXII,
	Section
	22.1
	of 	the
	prior
	agreement
between
	CSEA
	and
	the
	District 	states:
Ratification
	of 	Additions 	or
	Changes:
	Any
	additions 	or
changes
	in 	this
	Agreement
	shall
	not
	be
	effective 	unlessreduced 	to 	writing
	and
	signed
	by
	both
	parties.
This 	language 	indeed 	suggests
	that
	changes
	made
	during 	the
	life
of
	that
	agreement 	would
	not 	have
	required
	ratification, 	but
	it
does 	not 	speak 	to 	subsequent 	agreements.
	On
	the 	other 	hand, 	the
plain 	language 	of
	ARTICLE 	XXIX
	of 	the 	current 	agreement 	made
5

ratification
	a
	condition 	precedent
	to
	the
	agreement
	becoming
effective.
According
	to 	the
	response
	filed
	by
	the
	District,
	the
agreement
	was
	~tabled"
	by
	the
	District's
	Board
	of 	Trustees
	on
June
	7,
	1989, 	and
	was
	subsequently
	ratified
	on
	June
	12, 	1989.
	No
precise
	information
	was
	submitted
	by
	any
	party
	concerning
	the
date
	on which
	CSEA
	ratified
	the
	agreement,
	however,
	ICA
	does
state
	that
	"[n]o
	final
	ratification
	.took 	place
	until
	a
	week
after
	ICA
	filed
	its
	petition
	on
	May
	23, 	1989."
	ICA
	was
apparently
	referring
	to
	CSEA
	ratification,
	and
	its
	assertion
comports
	with
	allegations 	in
	an
	unfair 	practice
	charge
3
filed
with
	PERB
	by
	CSEA
	which
	alleges
	that 	unit
	members
	ratified
	the
agreement
	on
	June
	1, 	1989.
Although
	the
	evidence
	points 	to
	ratification
	of
	the
agreement
	by
	both
	parties
	as
	of
	June
	12, 	1989,
	CSEA
	has
	argued
	in
unfair 	practice
	charge
	LA-CE-2867
	that
	the
	District's 	failure
	to
ratify
	the
	agreement
	on
	June 	7,
	1989,
	improperly 	aided
	CALPRO's
'
decertification 	effort.
	Fixing 	the
	precise
	date 	of
	ratification
is
	actually
	unnecessary
	for
	purposes 	of
	this
	proceeding.
	What
	is
required
	is
	to
	determine 	whether
	these
	petitions
	were
	timely
filed
	and
	also,
	whether
	the 	proof 	of 	support
	was
	perfected 	in
	a
timely
	manner.
4
The
	petitions 	filed
	by
	ICA
	and
	CALPRO
	were
	filed
3
That 	charge 	has 	been 	docketed 	as 	case
	number 	LA-CE-2867
	and
is 	presently
	under
	investigation
	by
	the 	General 	Counsel.
4
Although
	a
	party 	filing
	a
	petition 	for 	decertification
	may
not 	be 	granted 	"additional 	time" 	to 	perfect 	proof 	of 	support,
	a
pa~ty
	may 	augment 	such 	support 	until 	the 	last
	day
	the 	petition
may
	be 	filed.
	Any
	support 	filed 	thereafter 	is 	invalid 	and 	may
6

on
	May 	23
	and
	June
	1,
	1989,
	respectively.
	Further,
	both
	of 	those
parties
	had
	perfected
	their
	proof 	of 	support
	by
	June
	6,
	1989,
	one
day
	prior
	to
	the 	date
	when
	CSEA
	contends
	the
	District
	should
	have
ratified
	the
	agreement,
	and
	more
	than
	one
	week
	prior
	to 	the 	date
the
	District
	actually
	ratified
	the
	agreement.
	It
	seems
	logical
to
	conclude,
	therefore,
	that
	these
	decertification 	petitions
	are
not
	contract
	barred,
	and
	were,
	in 	fact,
	timely
	filed.
not 	be 	counted 	towards 	the 	necessary
	30%
	needed
	for
	a
	valid
petition. 	State
	o~
	California
	(1983)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.	
327-S;
Petaluma 	City 	School
	District
	(1982)
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-131;
Pittsburg 	Unified 	School
	District
	(1978)
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-49.
CSEA
	has
	challenged
	the
	status
	of
	the
	ICA
	as
	an 	employee
organization
	within 	the
	meaning
	of
	EERA
	on
	the
	ground
	that
	ICA
	is
affiliated
	with
	the
	Inglewood
	Teachers
	Association
	(ITA)
	and
	the
California
	Teachers
	Association
	(CTA),
	both
	of
	which,
	according
to
	CSEA,
	deny 	membership
	to 	non-certificated
	employees.
	The
gravamen
	of
	this
	assertion
	appears
	to
	be
	the
	absence 	of
independence
	inherent 	in
	such
	a
	relationship,
	which,
	according
	to
CSEA,
	results
	in
	domination
	and
	control
	of 	the
	ICA
	by
	the
	ITA
	and
CTA.
CSEA
	has
	offered
	no
	evidence 	supporting
	its
	assertion 	that
ITA
	and
	CTA
	will
	dominate
	ICA,
	but
	seems
	to 	rely 	solely
	on
	the
alleged
	restriction
	on 	membership
	rights
	within 	the
	affiliated
organizations.
	I
	cannot 	conclude 	based
	upon
	that 	fact
	alone
	that
ICA
	is
	under
	the 	contol 	of, 	or
	dominated 	by,
	those
	affiliates.
Further,
	ICA's
	response 	notes
	that 	classified
	employees
	will
	have
full
	membership
	rights 	in
	ICA,
	thus 	casting 	serious 	doubt 	upon
7

CSEA's
	contention
	that
	the 	organization
	will
	be
	controlled
	by
	the
organizations
	with
	which
	it
	has
	affiliated.
	There
	is
	even
	less
evidence 	of
	domination
	and
	control
	here 	than
	in
	the
	case
	of
Jamestown
	Elementary 	School
	District
	(1989)
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-
187,
	in
	which
	the
	Board
	rejected
	a
	similar
	argument
	concerning
the
	status
	of
	a
	petitioning
	organization.
	The
	ICA,
	having
	filed
a
	decertification 	petition
	along 	with 	proof 	of 	support,
	has
demonstrated
	a
	purpose
	to 	represent
	employees
	on 	employment
related
	matters.
	It
	thus
	meets
	the
	test
	for
	an
	employee
organization 	stated
	by
	the
	Board
	in 	State
	of
	California
(Department
	of
	Developmental
	Services)
	(1982)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
228-S.
CSEA
	also
	contends
	ICA 	may
	not 	seek
	to 	represent 	the
classified
	employees
	because
	of
	its
	affiliation
	with
	ITA,
	which
represents 	teachers.
	Government 	code
	section
	3545(b)(2)
prohibits
	an
	organization
	from
	representing
	both
	supervisors
	and
the
	employees
	whom
	they 	supervise.
	CSEA
	argues
	that 	teachers
effectively
	recommend
	hiring
	and
	firing
	of
	certain 	certificated
employees,
	however
	the
	employees
	are
	not
	identified.
	The
argument
	is
	unsupported
	by 	any
	evidence, 	although
	CSEA
	does
contend
	there
	is
	evidence 	which 	would
	distinguish 	this
	case
	from
Redlands 	Unified 	School
	District
	(1982)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	235a.
Redlands 	stands 	for 	the 	proposition 	that,
	while 	teachers
	may
perform 	supervisory 	duties
	as 	envisioned
	by
	section 	3540.l(m),
the 	authority 	is
	not 	exercised 	in 	the
	interest
	of 	the 	employer,
but 	is 	part
	and
	parcel 	of
	a
	teacher's 	professional 	duties.
8

Because
	teachers,
	as
	a
	matter
	of
	law,
	are
	not
	supervisors, 	the
possibility
	of
	a
	violation
	of
	section
	3545(b)(2)
	does
	not
	exist,
and
	cannot 	serve
	as
	the 	basis 	for 	dismissal
	of
	ICA's
	petition.
Further,
	ICA
	is
	not
	the
	same
	organization
	as
	either
	the
	ITA
	or
the
	CTA,
	but
	is
	simply
	affiliated
	with
	them.
	See
	California
Teachers
	Association
	(Link)
	(1981)
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-123
	(law
which
	requires
	a
	certified
	or
	recognized
	employee
	organization 	to
file
	financial
	statement
	does
	not 	extend
	to 	organizations 	with
which
	it
	is 	affiliated).
CSEA
	contends
	ICA
	induced
	employees
	to 	sign 	cards
	supporting
ICA
	by
	falsely
	informing
	employees
	that
	the
	purpose
	of
	the
	cards
was
	to
	obtain 	information
	about
	ICA.
	CSEA
	submitted
	an
	affidavit
of
	its
	Chapter
	president 	in
	support 	of
	its
	contention.
	When
	the
language
	on
	the 	face 	of 	the 	proof 	of 	support 	card
	is
	unambiguous,
as
	it
	is
	in
	the 	case 	of 	the 	cards 	submitted
	by
	ICA,
	the 	support
will
	not
	be
	invalidated
	based
	upon
	contentions
	that
	the
	employees
did 	not
	know
	what
	they
	were
	signing 	or 	believed 	they
	were
	signing
for 	another
	purpose.
	The
	best
	evidence 	of
	the
	signer's 	intent 	is
the 	card
	itself,
	and
	extrinsic
	evidence, 	including, 	for
	example,
a
	subsequent 	revocation 	or 	the 	signing 	of 	support 	for
	a
	rival
organization
5
does
	not 	require 	invalidation.
In
	light
	of 	the
	above 	and
	pursunt 	to 	the
	letter
	of 	August 	1,
1989,
	CSEA
	is
	afforded 	the 	opportunity 	to
	SHOW
	CAUSE 	why
	its
motion
	to 	dismiss 	should 	not
	be
	denied,
	and
	why
	an
	election
5PERB
	regulation
	32700(b) 	expressly 	authorizes 	the
acceptance
	from 	one 	employee 	of 	support 	for
	more
	than 	one
organization. 
9

should 	not 	be 	ordered 	to 	allow 	employees 	to 	determine 	what
employee 	organization, 	if 	any, 	should 	be 	certified 	as 	exclusive
representative 	of 	the 	classified 	employees 	of 	the 	District.
CSEA's 	argument 	must 	be 	filed 	no 	later 	than 	September 	6, 	1989,
with 	PERB's 	Los 	Angeles 	Regional 	Office. 	Service 	and 	proof 	of
service 	are 	required.
Dated: 	August 	25, 	1989
Charles 	F. 	Mcclamma
Labor 	Relations 	Specialist
10

PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATION;) 	BOARD
lo; Angele~ Reg,onol Oll,cc
3530 VVd\h1rt:· Bvu!e ... ord S11tlt• 6~/1
August 	1, 	1989
Charles 	R. 	Gustafson 1 	Attorney
California 	Teachers 	Association
P.O. 	Box 	92888
Los 	Angeles, 	CA 	90009
David 	A. 	Rosenfeld, 	Attorney
Calif. 	Professional 	Education 	Employees
875 	Battery 	Street
San 	Francisco, 	CA 	94111
Diane 	McDonald, 	Senior 	Field 	Representative
California 	School 	Employees 	Association
5601 	East 	Slauson 	Avenue, 	Suite 	203
Los 	Angeles, 	CA 	90040
Dr. 	Althea 	Jenkins, 	Director 	of 	Personnel 	Services
Inglewood 	Unified 	School 	District
401 	South 	Inglewood 	Avenue
Inglewood, 	CA 	90301
Re: 	LA-D-242, -24 3 	( R-2 8 9)
Inglewood 	Unified 	School 	District
Dear 	Interested 	Parties:
By 	my 	letter 	dated 	June 	28, 	1989, 	the 	parties 	were 	offered 	the
opportunity 	to 	address 	arguments 	to 	the 	response 	filed 	by
California 	School 	Employees 	Association 	(CSEA) 	to 	the 	above-
referenced 	decertification 	petitions. 	Responses 	from 	both
Inglewood 	Classified Association 	(ICA) 	and 	California
Professional 	Education 	Employees 	(CALPRO) 	were 	filed. 	The 	issues
under 	consideration 	in 	my 	investigation 	involve 	both 	questions 	of
law 	and 	fact. 	My 	analysis 	of 	these 	issues 	leads 	me 	to 	conclude
that 	additional 	facts, 	supported 	by 	evidence, 	are 	required 	on
several 	issues.
The 	first 	issue 	concerns 	the 	size 	of 	the 	bargaining 	unit. 	CSEA
has 	argued 	that 	the 	unit 	is 	significantly 	larger 	than 	stated 	by
either 	petitioner 	because 	the 	District 	has 	improperly 	placed
substitutes 	in 	vacant 	positions 	rather 	than 	e~ploying 	these
persons 	in 	the 	classified 	service. 	Whether 	the 	District 	has
acted 	improperly 	does 	not 	alter 	the 	fact 	that 	unless 	substitute
employees 	are 	actually 	part 	of 	the 	established 	bargaining 	unit
for 	whom 	the 	parties 	have 	negotiated 	contract 	terms, 	they 	may 	not
be 	counted 	for 	purposes 	of 	determining 	the 	size 	of 	the 	unit. 	See
State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Personnel 	Administration)

Page
	2
(1985)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	532-S.
	PERB
	records
	indicate
	thatsubstitute
	employees 	were
	expressly
	excluded
	from
	the
	unit
recognized
	by
	the
	District
	in
	1977,
	and
	there
	is
	no
	evidence
demonstrating
	substitute
	employees 	were
	included
	among
	the
eligible
	voters
	in
	the
	decertification
	election
	conducted
	in
1987.
	Finally, 	there
	is
	no
	record 	of
	a
	unit
	modification
	by
	PERB
which
	includes
	substitutes 	in
	the
	unit.
	In 	order
	to
	sustain
	its
argument,
	CSEA
	must
	present
	evidence
	that
	through
	an
	agreement 	of
CSEA
	and
	the
	District, 	substitutes
	have 	been
	included 	as
	part
	of
the 	established 	unit.
LA-D-242,-243
August
	1,
	1989
The
	next
	issue
	concerns
	CSEA's
	allegation 	that
	these
decertification
	petitions
	are 	barred
	by
	a
	contract.
	Both
	ICA
	and
CALPRO
	argue
	that
	there
	was 	no
	contract
	until 	ratification
	by 	one
and
	possibly
	both
	parties
	to 	the
	agreement.
	PERB
	decisions
	which
address 	the 	question
	of 	whether
	an 	agreement
	may
	act
	as
	a
	bar 	to
a
	decertification 	petition 	indicate
	that 	ratification 	is
	required
only
	if
	the
	District
	and
	CSEA
	agreed,
	either
	by
	written
	ground
rules
	or
	by
	a
	provision 	in 	the 	negotiated
	agreement
	itself,
	that
ratification
	was
	a
	condition precedent
	to 	the
	agreement. 	See
	fuill.
Francisco
	Unified
	School
	District·
(1984)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	476;
State
	of
	California
	{SETC)
	(1983)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	348-S;
Downey
	Unified
	School
	District
	(1980)
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-97.
Evidence
	of
	such 	ground
	rules 	or 	contract 	provision
	should 	be
provided
	by
	ICA
	or
	CALPRO
	in
	support 	of
	their
	argument.
CSEA
	stated 	in
	its
	responses
	to 	the
	petitions 	that
[o]n
	May
	18,
	1989
	CSEA
	and
	the
	District
	reached
	a
	full
	and
complete 	agreement
	on
	all
	outstanding 	issues.
	At
	its
	board
of
	education
	meeting
	on
	May
	22, 	1989,
	the 	superintendent
announced
	to
	the 	audience
	that
	an 	"agreement
	was
	reached
with 	the
	[CSEA]."
	On 	May
	26,
	1989
	the
	parties
	initialed
	thechanges.
PERB
	precedent,
	which 	has 	followed
	closely 	the 	decisions 	of 	theNational
	Labor
	Relations
	Board
	in 	this 	area, 	indicates
	that 	for
an 	agreement
	to 	bar
	a
	decertification 	petition
	it
	must 	be
	signed
by
	the 	parties 	prior
	to 	the
	filing
	of 	the
	petition
	and
	"it
	must
contain 	substantial
	terms 	and
	conditions 	of
	employment
	sufficientto 	stabilize
	the 	parties 	bargaining 	relationship."
	State
	of
California
	(SETC},
	supra.
	Initialed
	informal
	documents 	have 	been
found
	to 	constitute
	an 	agreement 	which
	may
	act
	as
	a
	bar. 	Gaylord
Broadcasting
	Co. 	(1980) 	250
	NLRB
	198 	[104
	LRRM
	1360].
Accordingly, 	the 	parties
	should 	present 	evidence 	of 	such 	an
agreement 	which 	can 	be 	used
	to 	establish 	the 	date 	of
	a
	contract
bar,
	if
	indeed 	one
	exists.
CSEA
	also 	raised 	the 	issue 	of 	fraudulent 	procurement 	of 	proof 	of
support 	by 	ICA. 	CSEA 	must 	provide 	adequate 	proof 	of 	its

LA-D-242,-243
August 	1,
	1989
Page
	3
contention
	before
	any
	investigation
	of
	this
	matter
	will
	be
undertaken. 	Factual
	assertions
	must
	be
	supported
	by
	declarations
under
	penalty
	of
	perjury,
	by
	witnesses 	with
	personal
	knowledge,and
	should
	indicate
	that
	the 	witness,
	if
	called,
	could
competently
	testify
	about
	the
	writing.
	If
	the
	facts 	asserted
	are
reliant
	on
	a
	writing,
	the
	writing
	must
	be
	attached 	to
	the
declaration
	and
	authenticated 	therein.
The
	parties
	are
	hereby
	notified 	that
	they
	will
	be
	granted
	only
this
	one
	opportunity 	to
	submit
	facts
	and
	supporting 	evidence
identified
	by
	this
	letter
	or
	any
	other 	facts
	necessary
	to 	resolvethe 	issues.
	Submissions 	should
	be
	filed
	with
	PERB's 	Los
	Angeles
Regional 	Office
	no
	later
	than
	August 	15,
	1989.
	Further
submissions 	or
	formal
	hearing
	will
	be
	required
	only
	to 	resolvedisputed 	issues
	of
	fact,
	if
	any.
	All
	parties 	will
	be
	afforded
the 	opportunity 	to
	submit
	argument
	prior
	to
	the 	issuance 	of
	a
determination.
Your&
	truly,
Carol 	Karjala
Regional 	Director
(
Charles
	F. 	Mcclamma
Labor
	Relations
	Specialist
cc:	
Ward
	Allen
~om
	BatteeLaura
	Terman