San Francisco Community College District (PERB J016E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 261,
Petitioner.
)
)
)
. ) Case No. SF-R-713
Request for Judicial Review
PERB Decision No. 1068
PERB Order No. JR-16
March 1, 1995
)
))
)
)
)
)
Appearances: Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson by Jeffrey Sloan,
Attorney, for San Francisco Community College District; Neyhart,
Anderson, Reilly & Freitas by William J. Flynn, Attorney, for
Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local
261.
Before Carlyle, Garcia and Johnson, Members.
DECISION
CARLYLE, Member: This case is before the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB or Board) on a request by the Laborers'
International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 261 (Local
261) for PERB to join in seeking judicial review of San Francisco
Community College District (1994) PERB Decision No. 1068
(San Francisco).
In San Francisco, the Board adopted the Board agent's
proposed decision which denied Local 261's petition for
recognition of a bargaining unit of gardeners and nursery
specialists employed by the San Francisco Community College
District (District).

LOCAL 261'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
Local 261 alleges that this case is one of "special
importance" within the meaning of Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA)1 section 3542(a) as:
. . . it raises the interrelationship of the
EERA with the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act
("MMBA"), Government Code Section 3500,
et seq, where the covered employees have two
joint employers, one of which is an MMBA
employer (the City and County of
San Francisco) and one of which is an EERA
employer (the San Francisco Community College
District.).
Local 261 further states in its brief:
Direct judicial review will allow the parties
to seek direction from the Court of Appeal as
to how MMBA, EERA and the Education Code
interrelate when concerned with San Francisco
Civil Service employees who are also
"employees of the District.
DISCUSSION
In ruling on judicial review requests, the Board's authority
is derived from EERA section 3542(a) which states, in pertinent
part:
No employer or employee organization shall
have the right to judicial review of a unit
determination except: (1) when the board in
response to a petition from an employer or
employee organization, agrees that the case
is one of special importance and joins in the
request for such review; or (2) when the
issue is raised as a defense to an unfair
practice complaint.
(Emphasis added.)
1EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
2

Under PERB Regulation2 32500 (c), the Board has the sole
discretion to determine whether a case is "one of special
importance." The regulation states, in pertinent part:
(c) The Board may join in a request for
judicial review or may decline to join, at
its discretion.
The Board's considerable discretion in the determination of
appropriate units is demonstrated by the very limited
circumstances under which judicial review of its unit decisions
may be obtained. (San Diego Unified School District (19 81) PERB
Order No. JR-10.)
The reasons for PERB's strict standard is to ensure that the
fundamental rights of employees to form, join and participate in
the activities of employee organizations is not abridged.
Further, the standard is also employed to prevent employee
organizations' rights from being inhibited because if unit
determinations by PERB are subject to numerous legal challenges,
delays of implementation of the Board's decisions could occur.
(State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
(1993) PERB Order No. JR-15-S.)
On few occasions, the Board has joined in a request for
judicial review where it found "special importance" because: (1)
it was a novel issue; (2) primarily involved construction of a
statutory provision unique to EERA; and (3) was likely to arise
2PERB regulations are codified at California Code of
Regulations, title 8, section 31001 et seq.

frequently." (Los Angeles Unified School District (19 85) PERB
Order No. JR-13.)
This standard has not been met. Local 261 has attempted to
redefine its argument from the application of EERA unit criteria
to the "interrelationship between the EERA and the MMBA."
Although the District and city are viewed as "joint employers"
this does not lead to the conclusion that the EERA's unit
criteria applied is invalid. The Board, in determining the
appropriateness of a unit, is bound to consider only the criteria
set forth in EERA. (San Francisco.) As such, the Board does not
view the issues raised in this case as meeting the "special
importance" standard of EERA section 3542(a).
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the
request for judicial review of San Francisco Community College
District (1994) PERB Decision No. 1068 is DENIED.
Members Garcia and Johnson joined in this Decision.