Tehama County Superior Court (PERB 1957C)

2 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

STATIONARY ENGINEERS LOCAL 39,
Charging Party, Case No. SA-CE-7-C
V. PERB Decision No. 1957-C
TEHAMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, May 27, 2008
Respondent.

Appearances: Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld by Stewart Weinberg, Attorney, for Stationary
Engineers Local 39; Wiley, Price & Radulovich by Joseph E. Wiley, Attorney, for Tehama
County Superior Court.
Before Neuwald, Chair, McKeag and Rystrom, Members.
DECISION

RYSTROM, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by the Tehama County Superior Court (Court) of an administrative
law judge’s (ALJ) proposed decision (attached). The ALJ found that the Court violated the
Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act (Trial Court Act) ' by rejecting
Stationary Engineers Local 39’s (Local 39) petition for recognition as the representative for a
bargaining unit composed of managerial employees based on the Court’s local rule.

The Court filed a timely appeal. We have reviewed the entire record, including but not

limited to the unfair practice complaint, the proposed decision, the Court’s exceptions” thereto,

‘The Trial Court Act is codified at Government Code section 71600, et seg. Unless
otherwise indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

"The Court’s request for oral argument was previously denied pursuant to PERB
Regulation 32315,* The Board has historically denied requests for oral argument where an
adequate record has been prepared, and the parties had an ample opportunity to brief and did,

and Local 39's response to the Court's exceptions. Based on this review, we adopt the ALJ's
proposed decision combined with the following for the decision of the Board.
DISCUSSION
On September 27, 2006, Local 39, which at the time represented a bargaining unit
composed of non-managerial employees, filed a petition for recognition on behalf of a
bargaining unit composed of managerial employees. 	On October 16, 2006, the Court denied
the petition on the ground that Employer/Employee Relations Policy (EERP) Article 3.0 of its
local rules prohibited the same employee organization from representing both managerial and
non-management employees of the Court.3
Local 39 filed an unfair practice charge against the Court on October 17, 2006, which
alleged that the Court violated Section 71636.3 of the Trial Court Act by failing to respond to
Local 39's September 27, 2006, amended petition for recognition of a bargaining unit
composed of managerial employees. In its amended charge filed on December 15, 2006, Local
39 alleged that EERP Article 3.0 was an unreasonable local rule in that it impermissibly
conflicted with Section 71637.1 of the Trial Court Act. Section 71637.1 provides that:
and the issue before the Board is sufficiently clear to make oral argument unnecessary.
(United Teachers of Los Angeles (Valadez, et al.) (2001) PERB Decision No. 1453;
Montgomery County Office of Education (1991) PERB Decision No. 913.) (*PERB regs. are
codified at Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 31001, et seq.)
3EERP Article 3.0 provided:
Managerial and confidential employees shall be designated by the
court based upon the definitions set forth in section 2 of these
Rules. 	Such employees may not represent any employee
organization that represents other employees of the court on
matters within the scope of representation. No employee
organization ... representing non-management, non-confidential
employees shall be recognized as the representative of any
bargaining unit of managerial and/or confidential employees.
(Emphasis added.)
2

For purposes of this article, in addition to those rules and
regulations that a trial court may adopt pursuant to, and in the
same manner as set forth in, Section 71636, any trial court may
adopt reasonable rules and regulations providing for designation
of the management and confidential employees of the trial court
and restricting those employees from representing any employee
organization that represents other employees of the trial court, on
matters within the scope of representation. Except as specifically
provided otherwise in this article, this section does not otherwise
limit the right of employees to be members of, and to hold office
in, an employee organization. 	[Emphasis added.]
Local 39 alleged that this section does not permit the Court to adopt a local rule
prohibiting Local 39 from simultaneously representing units of non-managerial and managerial
court employees. 	We find that Local 39' s position on this issue is correct.
Throughout this proceeding the Court has justified its actions by arguing that even
though the Trial Court Act does not specifically prohibit an employee organization from
representing both management and non-management employees, the Court's local rule should
nonetheless be found reasonable because such representation is prohibited in three other
related labor relations statutes: the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act
(HEERA);4 the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA);5 and the Ralph C. Dills Act
(Dills Act).6 The ALJ's ruling that this argument is without merit is correct.
4HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560, et seq. HEERA section 3580
provides, in pertinent part, that "supervisory employees shall not have the rights, or be covered
by, any provision or definition established by this chapter."
5EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540, et seq. EERA section 3545(b)(2)
provides, in pertinent part, that "a negotiating unit of supervisory employees ... shall not be
represented by the same employee organization as employees whom the supervisory
employees supervise."
6The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512, et seq. Dills Act
section 3513(c) provides, in pertinent part, that '"State employee' means any civil service
employee of the state ... except managerial employees, confidential employees [and]
supervisory employees .... " Dills Act section 3518.7 provides, in pertinent part, that
3

The ALJ held that the Court's reliance on Article 3.0 of its EERP in denying Local 39's
recognition petition violated Sections 71636, 71636.3 and 71637.1 of the Trial Court Act and
was an unfair practice under Section 71639.l(c) and PERB Regulation 32606(±).
The ALJ found this local rule impermissibly conflicted with the Trial Court Act
section 71637.1 by preventing Local 39 from representing both management and non
management employees.
The Court filed three exceptions to the ALJ' s decision:
(1) 	The ALJ's reliance on Reinbold v. City of Santa Monica (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d
433 [133 Cal.Rptr. 874] (Reinbold) for his conclusion of law that Trial Court
Act section 71637.1 does not preclude management from being represented by
the same employee organization that represents non-management employees
was erroneous.
(2) 	The ALJ's failure to address and apply Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v.
County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331 [122 Cal.Rptr. 21 OJ
(San Mateo) was erroneous.
(3) 	The ALJ's finding that EERP Article 3.0 impermissibly conflicts with Trial
Court Act section 7163 7 .1 was erroneous.
We find that none of the Court's exceptions has merit. We hold that the ALJ's
interpretation of Section 7163 7 .1 based on Reinbold is correct and that San Mateo does not
change this result. We agree with the ALJ's analysis that the Court's local rule impermissibly
conflicts with the Trial Court Act section 7163 7 .1. We add the following to this analysis.
"Managerial employees and confidential employees shall be prohibited from holding elective
office in an employee organization which also represents 'state employees,' as defined in
subdivision (c) of Section 3513."
4

Legislative intent consistent with the ALJ's interpretation of Section 71637.1 is shown
by the Legislature's inclusion of a prohibition on employee organizations representing both
management and non-management employees in EERA, HEERA and the Dills Act and the
failure to include that prohibition in the Trial Court Act. (See Regents of University of
California v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 937, 945 [214
Cal.Rptr. 698].
Additionally, when provisions in a statute have been judicially construed, a subsequent
statute on the same subject, using the same language, is generally given a similar
interpretation. (County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees' Assn.
(1985) 38 Cal.3d 564,592 [214 Cal.Rptr. 424]; Moreland v. Department of Corporations
(1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 506,512 [239 Cal.Rptr. 558].)
Such is the case regarding Trial Court Act section 71637.1 which became effective
January 1, 2001. (Added Stats. 2000, ch. 1010, sec. 14 (SB 2140).) Section 71637.1 contains
the same language as the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) section 3507.5,7 which has
existed as presently written since being amended in 1969. (Added by Stats. 1968, ch. 1277,
sec. 1.) In Reinbold, MMBA section 3507.5 was interpreted as follows:
Section 3507.5 merely precludes management from representing
nonmanagement [sic] employees; the language does not preclude
management from being represented by the bargaining
organization. Any concern that there may be a conflict of interest
between management and the other employees, is obviated by the
fact that it is not management representing the employees.
The above-referenced interpretation of the identical language at issue in this case
existed more than 30 years before the Legislature enacted Trial Court Act section 71637.1.
7MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500, et seq.
5

This suggests a legislative intent that Section 7163 7 .1 should be similarly interpreted and we
so hold.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds the proposed decision to be a correct statement of the law and well
reasoned. 	Accordingly, we adopt it as the decision of the Board with the addition of the above.
ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in this
case, it is found that the Tehama County Superior Court (Court) violated the Trial Court
Employment Protection and Governance Act (Trial Court Act), Government Code
section 71600, et seq. The Court violated the Trial Court Act by rejecting the petition for
recognition submitted by Stationary Engineers Local 39 (Local 39).
Pursuant to Section 71639.l(c) of the Trial Court Act, it is hereby ORDERED that the
Court and its representative shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Rejecting Local 39's petition for recognition for a bargaining unit of
managerial employees because Local 39 currently represents a bargaining unit of the Court's
non-managerial employees.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE TRIAL COURT ACT:
1. 	Process and consider Local 39's petition for recognition without
consideration of whether the managerial bargaining unit would be represented by the same
employee organization that represents a bargaining unit of non-managerial employees.
2. 	Rescind that part of Article 3.0 of the Court's Employer/Employee
Relations Policy that prohibits an employee organization that is a recognized employee
6

organization representing non-management, non-confidential employees from being
recognized as the representative of any bargaining unit of managerial and/or confidential
employees.
3. 	Within ten (10) workdays of the service of a final decision in this matter,
post at all work locations where notices to managerial employees customarily are posted,
copies of the Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. The Notice must be signed by an
authorized agent of the Court, indicating that it 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 with
any other material.
4. 	Written notification of the actions taken to comply with this Order shall
be made to the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board, or the General
Counsel's designee. All reports regarding compliance with this Order shall be concurrently
served on Local 39.
Chair Neuwald and Member McKeag joined in this Decision.
7

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. SA-CE-7-C, Stationary Engineers
Local 39 v. Tehama County Superior Court in which all parties had the right to participate, it
has been found that the Tehama County Superior Court (Court) violated the Trial Court
Employment Protection and Governance Act, Government Code section 71600, et seq. by
rejecting the petition for recognition for managerial employees submitted by Stationary
Engineers Local 39 (Local 39).
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice and we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Rejecting Local 39's petition for recognition for a bargaining unit of
managerial employees because Local 39 currently represents a bargaining unit of the Court's
non-managerial employees.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE TRIAL COURT ACT:
1. 	Process and consider Local 39's petition for recognition without
consideration of whether the managerial bargaining unit would be represented by the same
employee organization that represents a bargaining unit of non-managerial employees.
2. 	Rescind that part of Article 3.0 of the Court's Employer/Employee
Relations Policy that prohibits an employee organization that is a recognized employee
organization representing non-management, non-confidential employees from being
recognized as the representative of any bargaining unit of managerial and/or confidential
employees.
Dated: 	TEHAMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
By:
Authorized Agent
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST THIRTY
(30) CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DA TE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEF ACED, ALTERED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
STATIONARY ENGINEERS LOCAL 39,
Charging Party,
V.
TEHAMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,
Respondent.
UNFAIR PRACTICE
CASE NO. SA-CE-7-C
PROPOSED DECISION
(9/28/2007)
Appearances: 	Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, by Stewart Weinberg and W. Daniel Boone,
Attorneys for Stationary Engineers Local 39; Wiley, Price & Radulovich, by Joseph E. Wiley,
Attorney for Tehama County Superior Court.
Before Bernard McMonigle, Chief Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case was initiated on October 17, 2006, when Stationary Engineers Local
39
(Union) filed an unfair practice charge against the Tehama County Superior Court (Court). On
January 11, 2007, the Office
of
the General Counsel
of
the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) issued a complaint alleging the Court violated the Trial Court
Employment Protection and Governance Act (TCEPGA or Act) when it rejected the Union's
petition for recognition 1• With this conduct the complaint also alleges that the Court
specifically violated sections 71636, 71636.3 and 71637.1
of
the Act and is an unfair practice
under section 71639.l(c) and PERB Regulation 32606(±) 2. The conduct was also alleged to
derivatively violate employee and employee organization rights under the Act.
On January 24, 2007, the Court filed its answer to the complaint generally denying the
allegations. A Board agent conducted a settlement conference on February 23, 2007, but the
1 The TCEPGA is codified at Government Code section 71600 et. seq.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Government Code.
PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 31001 et seq.

matter was not resolved. The undersigned conducted a formal hearing in this matter
on
June 29, 2007. 	With the receipt
of
briefs on August 20, 2007, the matter was submitted for a
proposed decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Union
is
an employee organization within the meaning
of
TCEPGA section
71601(b) and PERB Regulation 32033(b); the Court
is
a trial court within the meaning
of
section 71601(k) and PERB Regulation 32033(a).
On September 27, 2006, Robert Belgeri, a business representative for the Union,
submitted to the Court an amended request for recognition as the exclusive representative
of
a
bargaining unit
of
managerial employees. 	In relevant part, that request stated:
Unit Description and Showing
of
Interest:
a.	
Local 39 seeks to be certified as the exclusive
representative
of
the employees in the unit claimed to be
appropriate herein (see paragraph b, below).
b. 	The unit sought to be represented includes those
Court employees holding classifications included within Section
24.0 ("Exhibit B: Managerial Employees")
of
the EERP.
c. 	As to the showing
of
interest, Local 39 makes the
affirmative representation that it possesses a showing
of
interest
by way
of
Local 39 membership applications for over fifty
percent (50%)
of
the unit sought to be represented. Therefore,
with this letter Local 39 requests immediate recognition
of
the
unit. If, however, the Court requires further verification, Local
39 is prepared to provide proof
of
support to the State Mediation
and Conciliation Service (hereinafter "SMCS") as an uninterested
third party that can conduct the verification process pursuant to
Government Code Section 71636.3(c).
On October 16, 2008, the Court through its attorney, Joseph
E.
Wiley, replied:
Although the Amended Request for Recognition addresses one of
the two concerns raised by the Court in its August 25, 2006
response to the original Petition, it does not address the conflict
of interest issue set forth in Article 3.0 of the Court's
Employer/Employee Relations Policy. That article provides in
relevant part: "No employee organization that is a recognized
employee organization representing non-management, non
2

confidential employees shall be recognized as the representative
of
any bargaining unit
of
managerial and/or confidential
employees". 	Inasmuch as Local 39
is
the recognized employee
organization representing the Court's non-managerial employees,
it may not also be recognized
as
the representative for
confidential and managerial employees.
Article 3.0
of
the Court's Employer/Employee Relations Policy, referenced by Wiley, states:
Managerial and confidential employees shall
be
designated by the
court based upon the definitions set forth in section 2
of
these
Rules. 	Such employees may not represent any employee
organization that represents other employees
of
the court on
matters within the scope
of
representation. No employee
organization that is a recognized employee organization
representing non-management, non-confidential employees shall
be recognized as the representative
of
any bargaining unit
of
managerial and/or confidential employees.
As described in the October
16
letter, Stationary Engineers Local 39 currently represents a
bargaining unit
of
the Court's non-managerial employees. For that bargaining unit, the parties
are signatory to a memorandum
of
understanding (MOU), effective October
1,
2006, to
September 30, 2011. 	Section
2.1
of
the MOU states:
The Court recognizes the Union as the Exclusive Representative
of
all
of
the employees
of
the Court who hold a classification
listed on Exhibit "A"
of
this Memorandum
of
Understanding,
who are regularly scheduled to work one-half time or more.
Excluded from this unit
of
employees are all, management,
confidential, and temporary employees. 	The provisions
of
this
Memorandum
of
Understanding hereinafter set forth shall apply
only to those employees
of
the Court for whom the Union is the
established Exclusive Representative.
ISSUE
Did the Court violate the Act when it refused to recognize the Union as the exclusive
representative
of
a bargaining unit
of
managerial employees because the Union represents non
managerial employees?
3

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Initially the Court compares section 3
.0
of
its policy to section 3545(b)(2)
of
the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)3 which states,
Except as provided in subdivision (c ), a negotiating unit
of
supervisory employees shall not be appropriate unless it includes
all supervisory employees employed by the district and shall not
be represented by the same employee organization as employees
whom the supervisory employees supervise.
The Court contends that EERA reflects the inherent conflicts
of
interest that exist when
managers are represented by the same union that represents non-managers
of
the same
employer. According to the Court, such conflicts include a grievance procedure that may
require an employee to confront or appeal a grievance to a manager, and the varying interests
that may exist between the two groups in MOU negotiations.
PERB follows the cited provision in EERA and PERB decisions have recognized the
legislative purposes behind it. 	(See Sacramento City Unified School District (1980) PERB
Decision No. 122; Los Angeles Unified School District/Lynwood Unified School District
(1984) PERB Decision No. 424.)
However, in this case the recently enacted TCEPGA4 is at issue and will decide the
matter. When the Board is interpreting a statute section within its jurisdiction for the first time
it will look to cases decided under the other statutes administered. 5 Where "the similarity
of
language and purpose" is found, the Board will generally follow earlier decisions with similar
issues. 	(State
of
California (California Department
of
Corrections) (1980) PERB Decision
3 EERA is the collective bargaining statute covering California's public schools (K-12)
and community colleges.
4 The TCEPGA became effective August 2004.
5 PERB currently administers seven public sector collective bargaining statutes.
4

No. 127-S.) The Board uses its decisional authority to harmonize the various statutes where
appropriate. 	(City
of
San Rafael (2004) PERB Decision No. 1698-M.)
However, "in the face
of
strong evidence
of
a contrary intent," the Board is "not free to
rewrite the statute." (Regents
of
University
of
California
v.
Public Employment Relations Bd.
(1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 937; 214 Cal.Rptr. 698.) As one court has stated, "The Legislature
would be rendered nearly powerless to make changes in law
if
we were to permit the Board to
interpret this obvious change as a attempt to continue the same legal relationships" in the other
statutes under its jurisdiction. (Supra.)
Section 71637.1
of
the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act states:
For purposes of this article, in addition to those rules and
regulations that a trial court may adopt pursuant to, and in the same
manner as set forth in, Section 71636, any trial court may adopt
reasonable rules and regulations providing for designation
of
the
management and confidential employees
of
the trial court and
restricting those employees from representing any employee
organization that represents other employees
of
the trial court, on
matters within the scope
of
representation. Except as specifically
provided otherwise in this article, this section does not otherwise
limit the right
of
employees to be members of, and to hold office
in, an employee organization. (Emphasis added.)
The language is clear and the Legislature's intent is unambiguous. 	The concepts
developed under a statute with dissimilar language has no application here.
However, another
of
the statutes administered by PERB does contain a provision
similar to the one at issue. The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA),6 the collective bargaining
statute covering other county employees in California, states at section 3507.5:
In addition to those rules and regulations a public agency may
adopt pursuant to and in the same manner as in Section 3507, any
such agency may adopt reasonable rules and regulations
providing for designation of the management and confidential
employees of the public agency and restricting such employees
6 Government Code section 3500 et seq.
5

from representing any employee organization, which represents
other employees
of
the public agency, on matters within the
scope
of
representation. Except
as
specifically provided
otherwise in this chapter, this section does not otherwise limit the
right
of
employees to be members
of
and to hold office in an
employee organization.
This section
of
the MMBA has been interpreted to "merely [preclude] management
from representing nonmanagement (sic) employees; the language does not preclude
management from being represented by the [same] bargaining organization." (Reinbold v.
City
of
Santa Monica (1976)
63
Cal.App.3d 433.)7
The Court also argues that Employer/Employee Relations Policy section 3.0 is
authorized by sections 71636(a) and 71637.1
of
the Act. There the TCEPGA authorizes the
Court to "adopt reasonable rules and regulations" to administer employment relations in
addition to the rule found in section 7163 7 .1.
While it is true that the TCEPGA permits an employer to adopt additional reasonable
rules, it does not authorize rules that are in conflict with the Act. Rules adopted by the Court
must not "frustrate the declared policies and purposes"
of
the Act. (International Brotherhood
of
Electrical Workers v. City
of
Gridley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 191,202 [193 Cal.Rptr. 518].) Rule·
3.0
is
in direct conflict with the Legislature's directive that, "Except as specifically provided in
this article, this section does not otherwise limit the right
of
{management} employees to be
members of, and to hold office in, an employee organization." Accordingly, section 3.0
frustrates the policies
of
the Act and constitutes an unreasonable regulation.
For these reasons, the Court's reliance on Employer/Employee Relations Rule 3.0 to
reject the Union's petition for recognition violates the TCEPGA at sections 71636, 71636.3
and 71637.1 and is an unfair practice under section 71639.l(c) and PERB Regulation 32606(:f).
7 Section 71639 .3
of the Act directs PERB to follow judicial interpretations of the
MMBA where the language is "the same or substantially the same."
6

PROPOSED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings
of
fact and conclusions
of
law, and the entire record in this
case, it is found that the Tehama County Superior Court (Court) violated the Trial Court
Employment Protection and Governance Act (Act), Government Code section 71600
et
seq.
The Court violated the Act by rejecting petition for recognition submitted by Stationary
Engineers Local 39 (Union).
Pursuant to section 71639.l(c)
of
the Government Code, it is hereby ORDERED that
the Court and its representative shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1.	
Rejecting the Union's petition for recognition for a bargaining unit
of
managerial employees because the Union currently represents a bargaining unit
of
the Court's
non-managerial employees.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT:
1.	
Process and consider the Union's petition for recognition without
consideration
of
whether the managerial bargaining unit would be represented by the same
employee organization that represents a bargaining unit
of
non-managerial employees.
2. 	Rescind that part
of
Article 3.0
of
the Court's Employer/Employee
Relations Policy that prohibits an employee organization that is a recognized employee
organization representing non-management, non-confidential employees from being
recognized as the representative
of
any bargaining unit
of
managerial and/or confidential
employees.
3. 	Within ten (10) workdays
of
the service
of
a final decision in this matter,
post at all work locations where notices to managerial employees customarily are posted,
7

copies
of
the Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. 	The Notice must be signed by an
authorized agent
of
the Court, indicating that it will comply with the terms
of
this Order. 	Such
posting shall be maintained for a period
of
thirty (30) consecutive workdays. Reasonable step
shall be taken to ensure that the Notice is not reduced in size, altered, defaced or covered with
any other material.
4. 	Written notification
of
the actions taken to comply with this Order shall
be made to the General Counsel
of
the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board),
or the General Counsel's designee. All reports regarding compliance with this Order shall be
concurrently served on Stationary Engineers Local 39.
Pursuant to California Code
of
Regulations, title 8, section 32305, this Proposed
Decision and Order shall become final unless a party files a statement
of
exceptions with the
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) 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 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
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
exceptions. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32300.)
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB
business day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32135(a) and 32130; see also Government Code
sec. 11020(a).) A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission
before the close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets
8

the requirements
of
California Code
of
Regulations, title
8,
section 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. 	(Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8,
sec. 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 8, secs. 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 Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8,
secs. 32300, 32305,
32140, and 32135(c).)
Be~~Monb-
0-~~
Chief Administrative Law Judge
9