Victor Valley Community College District (PERB 1543E)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

PART-TIME FACULTY UNITED, AFT,
Charging Party, Case No. LA-CE-4349-E

Vv. PERB Decision No. 1543

VICTOR VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE July 23, 2003

DISTRICT,

Respondent,

VICTOR VALLEY COLLEGE FACULTY
ASSOCIATION, CTA/NEA

Intervenor.

Appearances: Law Offices of Robert J. Bezemek by Martin Fassler, Attorney, for Part-Time
Faculty United, AFT; Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by Mary L. Dowell, Attorney, for Victor
Valley Community College District; California Teachers Association by Michael D. Hersch,
Attorney, for Victor Valley College Faculty Association, CTA/NEA.
Before Baker, Whitehead and Neima, Members.
DECISION

BAKER, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB
or Board) on exceptions filed by the Victor Valley Community College District (District) and
Victor Valley College Faculty Association, CTA/NEA (Intervenor) (VVCFA) to a proposed

decision (attached) of an administrative law judge (ALJ), which found that the District violated

section 3543.5(a), (b) and (d) of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)! by

' EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. EERA section 3543.5
provides, in relevant part:

It shall be unlawful for a public school employer to do any of the
following:

supporting the VVCF A in preference to the Part-Time Faculty United, AFT (PFU), which was
organizing the District's part-time faculty. 	It is undisputed that the District entered into an
agreement with the VVCFA to amend the recognition clause of the collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) between the parties to include part-time faculty. 	The agreement allowed the
VVCFA to accrete 350 part-time faculty members into the existing unit of 140 full-time faculty
members without any showing of support. Although the VVCF A claims that it had intended
for years to bring the part-time faculty into its unit, the VVCF A did not propose amending the
recognition clause of its CBA until approximately one month after PFU began its organizing
campaign.
Relying on the Board's recent decision in Santa Clarita Community College District
(College of the Canyons) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1506 (Santa Clarita), the ALJ found that
the District violated EERA when it agreed to amend the recognition clause of the CBA to
allow the accretion of the part-time faculty members by the VVCF A when the District was
aware that PFU had begun its organizing campaign. In its exceptions, the District raises many
of the same arguments considered and rejected by the Board in Santa Clarita. The District's
(a) Impose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, to
discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or
otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because
of their exercise of rights guaranteed by this chapter. For
purposes of this subdivision, "employee" includes an applicant
for employment or reemployment.
(b) Deny to employee organizations rights guaranteed to them by
this chapter.
( d) Dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of
any employee organization, or contribute financial or other
support to it, or in any way encourage employees to join any
organization in preference to another.
2

only attempt to distinguish Santa Clarita is its argument that, unlike the full-time faculty union
in Santa Clarita, VVCF A "had already done considerable work to prepare to represent the part-
time faculty." However, this is an immaterial distinction. The assertion that VVCFA
may
have intended to represent the part-time faculty at some point in the future does not alter the
fact that the District's actions contributed support to one employee organization over another
and served to deny employees their right to freely choose their representative. (See Santa
Clarita.)
Apart from this argument, neither the District nor VVCF A make any effort to
distinguish Santa Clarita. Indeed, any such effort would be futile, since the material facts in
this case are identical to those in Santa Clarita. The ALJ's holding that the District violated
EERA section 3543.S(a), (b) and (d) must therefore be affirmed. Accordingly, having
reviewed the record in this case, including the proposed decision, the District's exceptions, the
VVCFA's exceptions, and the
PFU's
response, the Board finds the proposed decision to
be
free
of
prejudicial error and adopts it in full.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing findings
of
fact, conclusions
oflaw,
and the entire record in this
case, it is found that the Victor Valley Community College District (District) violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act (BERA), Government Code section 3543.S(a), (b), and
(d), when it adopted the February 12, 2002, agreement with the Victor Valley College Faculty
Association, CTA/NEA (Intervenor) (VVCFA) to include unrepresented part-time faculty in
the full-time faculty unit.
Pursuant to EERA section 3541.S(c), it is hereby ORDERED that the District, its
administrators and representatives shall:
3

A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1.	
Giving any effect or recognition to the February 12, 2002, agreement
with VVCF A to expand the full-time faculty bargaining unit to include unrepresented part-time
faculty.
2. 	Contributing support to VVCF A.
3. 	Encouraging employees to
join
VVCFA in preference to Part-Time
Faculty United, AFT (PFU).
4. 	Interfering with the right
of
District employees to participate in the
activities
of
an employee organization
of
their own choosing.
5. 	Denying PFU its right to represent employees in their employment
relations with the District.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF BERA:
1.	
Within ten (10) workdays following the date this decision is no longer
subject to appeal, post at all locations where notices are customarily posted, copies
of
the
notice attached hereto as an Appendix.
2. 	Written notification
of
the actions taken to comply with this Order shall
be made to the San Francisco Regional Director
of
the Public Employment Relations Board in
accordance with the director's instructions. Continue to report, in writing, to the regional
director thereafter as directed. All reports to the regional director shall be concurrently served
on VVCFA and PFU.
Members Whitehead and Neimajoined in this Decision.
4

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. LA-CE-4349-E, Part-Time Faculty United,
AFT v. Victor Valley Community College District/Victor Valley College Faculty Association,
CTA/NEA (Intervenor), in which all parties had the right to participate, it has been found that
the Victor Valley Community College District (District) violated the Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA), Government Code section 3543.S(a), (b) and (d) when it adopted the
February 12, 2002, agreement with the Victor Valley College Faculty Association, CTA/NEA
(Intervenor) (VVCF A) to include unrepresented part-time faculty in the full-time unit.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice and we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Giving any effect or recognition to the February 12, 2002, agreement
with VVCF A to expand the full-time faculty bargaining unit to include unrepresented part-time
faculty.
2. 	Contributing support to VVCFA.
3. 	Encouraging employees to join VVCFA in preference to Part-Time
Faculty United, AFT (PFU).
4. 	Interfering with the right of District employees to participate in the
activities of an employee organization of their own choosing.
5. 	Denying PFU its right to represent employees in their employment
relations with the District.
Dated: 	VICTOR VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT
:f3y: ---------------
Authorized Agent
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST THIRTY
(30) CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PART-TIME FACULTY UNITED, AFT,
Charging Party,
v.
VICTOR VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent,
VICTOR VALLEY COLLEGE FA CULTY
ASSOCIATION, CTA/NEA,
Intervenor.
UNFAIR PRACTICE
CASE NO. LA-CE-4349-E
PROPOSED DECISION
(3/6/03)
Appearances: Law Offices of Robert J. Bezemek by Martin J. Fassler, Attorney, for Part-time
Faculty United, AFT; Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by Mary L. Dowell, Attorney, for Victor
Valley Community College District; California Teachers Association by Michael D. Hersch,
Attorney, for Victor Valley College Faculty Association, CT A/NEA.
Before Donn Ginoza, Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A union seeking to organize unrepresented part-time community college faculty
members requests rescission of an agreement between the community college district and the
exclusive representative of full-time faculty to accrete the part-time faculty into the
incumbent's bargaining unit, on grounds that the district's action violated its duty of strict
neutrality and constituted unlawful assistance to the incumbent.
On November 29, 2001, Part-time Faculty United, AFT (PFU) filed an unfair practice
charge against the Victor Valley Community College District (District) alleging that the
District denied PFU its right of access to employees for the purpose of organizing support
among the faculty. 	On February 8, 2002, PFU filed an amended charge to add the allegation

that the District unlawfully entered into an agreement with the exclusive representative of the
certificated bargaining unit, Victor Valley College Faculty Association, CTA/NEA (VVCF A),
to modify the unit to include the part-time faculty. 	On the same day, PFU also submitted a
request for injunctive relief with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board). 1
On April 9, 2002, VVCFA filed a motion to be joined as a party in the action. 	On May 3,
2002, PFU filed a second amended charge, withdrawing the allegations concerning the denial
of the right of access to employees.
On May 7, 2002, following its investigation of the charge, the general counsel issued a
complaint alleging that by entering into the agreement with VVCF A the District encouraged
employees to join one employee organization in preference to another, in violation of
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA or Act) section 3543.5(a), (b), and (d). 2 On
1 On April 17, 2002, following an investigation by the Office of the General Counsel,
PERB granted the request. The general counsel then sought and obtained a preliminary
injunction in San Bernardino County Superior Court. The court granted the injunction on
August 6, 2002. The injunction prevents the District from giving any force or effect to the
agreement it has with VVCFA.
2 Hereafter all statutory references are to the Government Code. The EERA is found at
section 3540 et seq. Section 3543.5 provides:
It shall be unlawful for a public school employer to do any of the
following:
(a) Impose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, to
discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or
otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because
of their exercise ofrights guaranteed by this chapter. For
purposes of this subdivision, "employee" includes an applicant
for employment or reemployment.
(b) Deny to employee organizations rights guaranteed to them by
this chapter.
2

May 23, 2002, the District answered the complaint against it, denying the material allegations
of the complaint and asserting a number of affirmative defenses. On May 28, 2002, VVCFA
filed its answer to the complaint. On June 13, 2002, VVCFA's motion for joinder was granted.
An informal settlement conference held before PERB on June 4, 2002, failed to resolve
the dispute.
A formal hearing was conducted before the undersigned on September 5 and 6, 2002, in
Los Angeles. The matter was submitted for decision on February 24, 2003, following
submission of the parties' post-hearing briefs. 3
FINDINGS OFF ACT
The District is a "public school employer" within the meaning of section 3540.1 (k).
PFU and VVCF A are "employee organizations" within the meaning of section 3540.1 (d).
The District is a community college district serving approximately 14,000 students.
all times relevant to this dispute, the District employed approximately 140 full-time faculty and
350 part-time faculty members. Prior to the events in dispute here, VVCFA was the
"recognized employee organization" (sec. 3540.1(1)) (i.e., exclusive representative) of a
bargaining unit composed solely of full-time faculty members.
3 matter was placed 	abeyance on October 25, 2002, pending
Board's decision in the related matter of Part-time Faculty United, AFT v. Santa Clarita
Community College District (Case No. LA-CE-4357-E). It was reactivated on
January 9, 2003, following the Board's decision issued on January 8, 2003. On September 17,
2002, PFU filed a request seeking to have the instant case transferred to the Board for issuance
of a decision, citing the relatedness of the Santa Clarita case. The Board denied the request.
(d) Dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of
any employee organization, or contribute financial or other
support to it, or in any way encourage employees to join any
organization in preference to another.
3

PFU began to organize part-time faculty members in mid-September 2001. Linda
Cushing is a representative of AFT's nationwide organization and spearheads its effort in
southern California to organize community college faculty. 	Cushing, as well as AFT
organizers John Berg, Robert Yoshioka, and Barbara Yoshioka, visited the District on
approximately 10 occasions from the fall semester through the spring semester. They solicited
authorization cards from part-time faculty members, distributed literature about AFT, and
answered questions about their organization. During the third week in October, they set up a
table with a sign bearing the PFU name and the AFT logo outside the faculty mailroom. At
one point the college president walked by the table and questioned PFU's authorization to
organize on campus. An attempt by Cushing to meet with the president to discuss the matter
was rebuffed. By February 2002, PFU had succeeded in obtaining signatures on authorization
cards constituting approximately 23 percent of the part-time faculty. This figure was based on
an employee roster provided by the District.
Deborah Blanchard has been active in VVCFA since 1996 and has been an officer since
1998. Blanchard has served as an area representative, vice-president and president ofVVCFA.
Her tenn as president began in August 2002. As early as the 1997-1998 school year,
Blanchard, then a VVCF A area representative, encouraged part-time faculty to participate in
VVCF A meetings. She reported back to part-time faculty members within her area of
representation, and advocated for their interests as their representative.
In October 2000, VVCF A distributed a survey questionnaire to part-time faculty
soliciting information about issues of concern to part-timers, such as office hours, office space,
,u""-"',-,- reimbursement, sick leave, equipment usage, and the like. 	Out of 350 surveys sent
4

out, 120 were returned. A summary
of
the results was distributed to the full-time faculty in
December 2000.
In April or May 2001, when Blanchard was VVCFA vice-president, she distributed
fliers and authorization cards to all part-time faculty mailboxes. There was no evidence as to
how many cards were returned.
Through conferences
of
the California Teachers Association (CTA) which she had
attended, Blanchard learned that unrepresented part-time faculty could be granted
representation rights by having a recognized full-time faculty representative agree with the
employer to modify the existing unit so as to
bring part-time faculty within the represented
bargaining unit.
On October 25, 2001, during ongoing negotiations between the District and VVCFA,
VVCFA proposed that the recognition clause
of
the parties' collective agreement be amended
to include part-time faculty. 	An agreement was reached between the parties on this matter in
January 2002.
The District's governing board held a regularly scheduled meeting on February 12,
2002. At that meeting, an item on the agenda was approval
of
the unit modification agreement.
Cushing attended and spoke in opposition to the proposal. She advised the board that PFU had
obtained authorization cards for 20 percent
of
the part-time faculty and argued that the unit
modification would deny the part-time faculty their right
of
free choice. Blanchard and
another VVCF A supporter spoke in favor
of
the agreement, claiming it was proper under
PERB regulations. The board asked Blanchard ifVVCFA would be willing to conduct a poll
of support for VVCF A. Blanchard declined. The governing board then voted unanimously to
adopt the agreement. There were factual disputes about whether Blanchard disputed PFU's
5

proof
of
support, whether she informed the board
of
VVCFA's
part-time faculty survey, and
whether the board granted significantly more speaking time to VVCF A than
PFU
at the
meeting. I find it unnecessary to resolve these disputes in order to decide this case.
Attendance at a PFU meeting
of
part-time faculty immediately after the governing
board's approval
of
the unit modification declined
by
50 percent or more (i.e., from
15
to 20
faculty to seven).
ISSUE
Did the District,
by
entering into the unit modification agreement with VVCF A,
encourage employees to
join
VVCFA in preference to PFU, in violation
of
section 3543.5(a),
(b), or (d)?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
During the same time frame
of
events here, the same PFU team was organizing part-
time faculty members at the Santa Clarita Community College District. The undersigned
presided over the unfair practice hearing involving claims
by PFU
of
a similar nature and
issued a proposed decision on September 11, 2002. The operative facts in that case are for all
relevant purposes identical with those here: PFU was organizing in a visible manner
on
the
community college campus and had obtained signed authorization cards from approximately
20 percent
of
the part-time faculty, when, over its express objection, the community college
district's governing board approved an agreement with the exclusive representative
of
the full-
time faculty bargaining unit, a CTA affiliate, to modify the full-time unit so as to include all
In a decision issued on January 8, 2003, PERB found in favor
of
PFU and against
community college district, reversing the undersigned's proposed decision. PERB held that the
6

unit modification agreement violated EERA section 3543.S(d) by unlawfully tending to
influence employee choice of membership. 	(Santa Clarita Community College District (2003)
PERB Decision No. 1506 (Santa Clarita).)
Relying on Santa Monica Community College District (1979) PERB Decision
No. 1034 and Long Beach Community College District (1998) PERB Decision No. 1278 (Long
Beach),5 PERB rejected the argument that an employer and exclusive representative, in the
face of a visible, ongoing organizational campaign by a competing employee organization,
may justify their agreement to accrete part-time faculty positions into the existing full-time
unit pursuant to the authority of PERB Regulation 32781,6 irrespective of the level of support
garnered by the competing employee organization. PERB held that to allow "such a result
4 PERB held in this case that section 3543.S(d) imposes on the employer an
"unqualified" duty of "strict neutrality" between competing employee organizations and that
the threshold test for a violation of section 3543.S(d) focuses not on the employer's intent but
whether its conduct "tends to influence that choice or provide stimulus in one direction or
another."
5 In the later case, PERB, following Santa Monica Community College District, supra,
PERB Decision No. 103, held unlawful an employer's granting a rival employee organization
the right to make a presentation to employees regarding a campaign to sever a portion of
existing unit, because it constituted encouragement of membership in the rival organization.
6 The operative language of Regulation 32781 (PERB regulations are codified at Cal.
Code Regs, tit. 8, sec. 31001 et seq.), which prescribes rules for unit modification petitions, is
the introductory language "[a]bsent agreement of the parties to modify a unit. ... " This
language was added by amendment to the regulation in 1988. The effect of the amendment
was to cede authority to the parties to accomplish unit modifications without resort to the
formal representation procedures of PERB. Regulation 32781 reads in pertinent part as
Absent agreement of the parties to modify a unit, an exclusive
representative, an employer, or both must file a petition for unit
modification in accordance with this section. Parties who wish to
obtain Board approval of a unit modification may file a petition
in accordance with the provisions of this section. 	[Emphasis
added.]
7

violates basic provisions of EERA itself, which prevail over interpretations of regulations
enacted under the Board's jurisdiction pursuant to that statute." (Santa Clarita, supra.) Those
enacted regulations, the Board noted, must be "applied in conformity with the legislative grant
of jurisdiction under which they were promulgated." (Id.)
PERB rationale was:
Here, the [Santa Clarita Community College] District went
beyond providing assistance to [the College of the Canyons
Faculty Association (COCFA)]. It participated with COCFA in
the formation of an agreement that it claims required part-time
faculty to accept COCFA representation at a time when all parties
were on notice that PFU was organizing the part-time faculty.
The District used its governing board sessions to entertain
COCFA's motion, and used District personnel and time to discuss
its terms and to ratify it. The Board finds this case consistent
with the analysis in Long Beach (No. 1278). The District's
conduct could not be viewed in a manner other than as indicating
the District favored COCF A over PFU. The natural
consequences of the District's actions would be interference with
employee selection of a representative. Such conduct tends to
influence the choice by employees between employee
organizations .... [Santa Clarita, supra; emphasis in original.]
Thus, the purposes and policies of the EERA divined in Santa Monica Community College
District, supra, PERB Decision No. 103 and Long Beach, namely, to ensure that the right of
employee free choice be respected through the employer's adherence to strict neutrality
between competing employee organizations during an organizational campaign, override an
employer's claim of justification through PERB Regulation 32781. According to Santa
Clarita, PERB Regulation 32781 authorizes unit modifications by agreement (i.e., without
sanction of an election) only when there is no competing organizational campaign.
I reject the District's argument that I am not bound by Santa Clarita because that
decision has been appealed to the Court of Appeal. PERB administrative law judges are bound
to apply PERB precedent until it is reversed.
8

I also reject the argument of both the District and VVCFA that this case is factually
distinguishable from Santa Clarita because VVCF A had engaged in efforts to organize part-
time faculty and thus could not be viewed as having "waived" their right to represent the part-
time faculty.
The District and VVCFA take this argument in the direction of urging me to find that a
unit of both full-time and part-time faculty is the presumptively appropriate unit (i.e., the one
desired by VVCF A), and conversely that a unit of only part-time faculty (i.e., the one sought
by PFU) is inappropriate. The District and VVCF A argue by negative implication from the
holding in Long Beach Community College District (1989) PERB Decision No. 765, where it
was found that a unit of part-timers, separate from full-timers was appropriate, notwithstanding
the presumption for a single unit, because there the exclusive representative showed no interest
in representing part-timers. 	In contrast in this case, VVCF A claims not to have waived its
right to represent, or disclaimed its interest in representing, part-timers. 	But the
appropriateness of the part-time faculty unit is not before me because the issue was not
litigated in this case. I decline to make a unit appropriateness determination based on this
limited record.
Further, VVCF A argues, it had support of a majority of the part-timers and the District
legitimately viewed VVCFA as representing a majority of"the bargaining unit in question."
VVCF A cites no evidence to support this claim, and I find nothing in the record to support it.
Therefore, this argument provides no defense to the complaint.
I find that the District violated section 3543.5(d) by entertaining and
adopting the proposed agreement with VVCF A to expand the full-time faculty unit to include
part-time faculty.
9

In addition, I find that this conduct interfered with the part-time employees' right to
participate in activities
of
an employee organization
of
their own choosing, in violation
of
section 3543.5(a), and denied PFU its right as an employee organization to represent public
school employees, in violation
of
section 3543.S(b
).
	In Santa Clarita, supra, PERB concluded
that the unit modification agreement required part-time faculty to accept the incumbent's
representation and ordered that the District cease and desist from encouraging employees to
join one employee organization in preference to another.7 This necessarily involves
interference with the right
of
participation in an employee organization
of
the employee's own
choosing. By the same logic, and the fact that the Board ordered the District to cease and
desist from contributing support to VVCFA, the challenging union's inchoate right to represent
the affected employees is abridged and denied.
REMEDY
Section 3541.S(c) grants PERB
the power to issue a decision and order directing an offending
party to cease and desist from the unfair practice and to take such
affirmative action, including but not limited to the reinstatement
of
employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the
policies
of
this chapter.
It has been determined in this case that the District violated its obligation
of
strict
neutrality by agreeing with VVCF A to modify the unit
of
full-time faculty so as to include
part-time faculty, in violation
of
section 3543.S(d). The District will be ordered to return to the
status quo ante which existed prior to the adoption
of
the agreement. Thus, it is ordered to
7 The Board declined to find (a) and (b) violations because PFU did not except to the
administrative law judge's rejection of those allegations.
10

rescind the February 12, 2002, resolution adopting the agreement with VVCFA to expand the
full-time faculty bargaining unit to include part-time faculty.
PFU requests that I order the District provide it, upon request, with home addresses and
home telephone numbers. PFU claims this is necessary to eliminate a competitive
disadvantage in relation to VVCF A, which it is asserted has this information already. I reject
this request. 	There was no evidence taken that PFU has requested home addresses and
telephone numbers, that the District has refused to provide such information, or that VVCF A
has the information. (See Santa Monica Community College District, supra, PERB Decision
No. 103 [non-exclusive representative's right to information].) I find that this issue is not
before me and that it is not ripe for adjudication in any event.
As a result of the above-described violation, the District has also interfered with the
right of employees to participate in an employee organization of their own choosing in
violation of section 3543.S(a) and denied PFU its right to represent employees in their
employment relations with a public agency in violation of section 3543.S(b ). The appropriate
remedy is to cease and desist from such unlawful conduct. (Rio Hondo Community College
District (1983) PERB Decision No. 292.)
Finally, it is the ordinary remedy in PERB cases that the party found to have committed
an unfair practice be ordered to post a notice incorporating the terms of the order. Such an
order ordinarily is granted to provide employees with a notice, signed by an authorized agent
that the offending party has acted unlawfully, is being required to cease and desist from its
will comply with the order. Thus, it is appropriate to order the District
to post a notice incorporating the terms of the order herein at its campuses, classrooms, and
other facilities where part-time faculty work and teach classes. Posting of such notice
11

effectuates the purposes of the EERA that employees be informed of the resolution of this
matter and the District's readiness to comply with the ordered remedy. (Davis Unified School
District 	980) PERB Decision No. 116; see also Placerville Union School District (1978)
PERB Decision No. 69.)
In the latter regard, PFU requests that I order that the District send a copy of the formal
"Notice" described above to the home address of every part-time faculty member, citing the
special circumstances of part-time employment and the unlikely possibility that part-time
faculty will view normal bulletin board postings. I do not agree that in the absence of such a
special remedial order "a significant number of employees will undoubtedly continue to
believe that the VVCF A is their exclusive bargaining agent," as asserted by PFU. If part-time
faculty contact with the District is as intermittent as PFU argues, I cannot conclude that all
part-time members even know that they are currently exclusively represented by VVCF A.
PFU's basis for the special remedial order is too speculative in my opinion. 	Further, I note
that in Santa Clarita, PERB did not order the type of posting requested by PFU here. However,
to the extent that PFU asserts that community college work sites are "scattered and varied,"
and include "off-campus centers" and other "public schools," the posting order contained
herein should be interpreted as including all such sites within the meaning of "all locations
where notices to employees are customarily posted."
PROPOSED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in this
case, it has been found that the Victor Valley Community College District (District) violated
""""'"'"vuu» Employment Relations Act (Act), Government Code section 3543.5(a),
and (d), when it adopted the February 12, 2002, agreement with the Victor Valley College
12

Faculty Association (VVCF A) to include unrepresented part-time faculty in the full-time
faculty unit.
Pursuant to section 3541.5, subdivision (c) of the Government Code, it hereby is
ORDERED that the District, its governing board and its representatives shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Enforcing the February 12, 2002, agreement with VVCFA to expand the
full-time faculty bargaining unit to include unrepresented part-time faculty when the District is
on notice that part-time faculty are being organized by another employee organization;
2. 	Contributing support to VVCF A;
3. 	Encouraging employees to join VVCFA in preference to Part-time
Faculty United (PFU);
4. 	Interfering with the right of District employees to participate in the
activities of an employee organization of their own choosing; and
5. 	Denying PFU its right to represent employees in their employment
relations with the District.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT:
1. 	Within ten (10) workdays of service of a final decision in this matter,
rescind the February 12, 2002, resolution adopting the agreement with VVCF A to include
unrepresented part-time faculty in the full-time faculty unit.
2. 	Within seven (7) workdays of service of a final decision in this matter,
at 	locations where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the Notice
attached hereto as an appendix. The Notice must be signed by an authorized agent for the
District, indicating that the District will comply with the terms of this Order. Such posting
13

shall be maintained for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to ensure that the Notice is not reduced in size, altered, defaced or covered by an
other material.
3. 	Within thirty (30) workdays of service of a final decision in this matter,
notify the Sacramento Regional Director of the Public Employment Relations Board, in
writing, of the steps the employer has taken to comply with the terms of this Order. Continue
to report in writing to the Regional Director periodically thereafter as directed. All reports to
Regional Director shall be served concurrently on the Charging Party.
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32305, this Proposed Decision and Order shall become
final unless a party files a statement of exceptions with the PERB itself within 20 days of
service of this Decision. The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
FAX: (916) 327-7960
In accordance with PERB regulations, the statement of exceptions should identify by
page citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any, relied upon for such
(PERB Regulation 32300.)
A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close of business
(5 p.m.) on the last day set for filing or when mailed by certified or Express United States mail,
as shown on the postal receipt or postmark, or delivered to a common carrier promising
overnight delivery, as shown on the carrier's receipt, not later than the last day set for filing.
(PERB Regulations 32135(a) and 32130.)
14

A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before
the close of business on the last day for filing together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover
Sheet which meets the requirements of PERB Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party
also places the original, together with the required number of copies and proof of service, in
the U.S. mail. 	(PERB Regulation 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also PERB Regulations 32090 and
32130.)
Any statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served concurrently with its
filing upon each party to this proceeding. Proof of service shall accompany each copy served
on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See PERB Regulations 32300, 32305, 32140, and
32135(c).)
Administrative Law Judge
15