Pittsburg Unified School District (PERB 2833E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PITTSBURG EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Charging Party,
v.
PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. SF-CE-3366-E
PERB Decision No. 2833
September 13, 2022
Appearances: California Teachers Association by Jacob F. Rukeyser, Attorney, for
Pittsburg Education Association, CTA/NEA; Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost by Joshua A.
Stevens, Attorney, for Pittsburg Unified School District.
Before Banks, Chair; Shiners and Krantz, Members.
DECISION
KRANTZ, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions by Pittsburg Unified School District to a proposed
decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ concluded that the District
changed Adult Education teachers’ summer work hours and for the first time required
them to apply to teach summer courses, without affording Pittsburg Education
Association notice and an opportunity to meet and negotiate, violating the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA).1 We have reviewed the record and the parties’
arguments. We affirm the ALJ’s conclusion that the District violated its bargaining
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. All further
statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated.

2
obligation when it required Adult Education teachers to apply to teach summer
courses, but we reverse the ALJ’s conclusion that the District unlawfully changed their
summer work hours.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The District is a public school employer within the meaning of EERA
section 3540.1, subdivision (k). In addition to serving preschool through 12th grade
students, the District also serves adult students through the Pittsburg Adult Education
Center (PAEC). The PAEC offers four core programs year-round: English as a Second
Language (ESL); Adult Basic Education (ABE); Adult Secondary Education; and
General Educational Development (GED), also known as high school equivalency
courses. PAEC also offers two types of fee-based courses that are available only
when enrollment levels make them financially sustainable: Career Technical Education
(an employment training program), and community interest courses, which are
hobby-oriented.
The Association is an employee organization within the meaning of EERA
section 3540.1, subdivision (d). The Association represents certificated employees at
the District, including PAEC teachers. A majority of PAEC teachers work less than
60 percent of full time and are therefore classified as temporary employees. (Ed.
Code, § 44929.25 [“[A]ny person who is employed to teach adults for not more than
60 percent of the hours per week considered a full-time assignment for permanent
employees having comparable duties shall be classified as a temporary employee”].)
At all relevant times, the District has paid PAEC teachers on an hourly basis.

3
I. 	The Parties’ 2017-2020 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
When this dispute arose in 2019, Article 6 of the parties’ CBA, entitled “Hours of
Employment,” included the following provision: “The work day for [an] adult education
unit member shall be according to the number of classes that are assigned to the unit
member.” The CBA also included Article 17, entitled “Summer School,” which appears
to apply only to summer school for preschool through 12th grade teachers, as the
article does not mention adult education and there is no evidence the District has ever
applied it to PAEC teachers.
II. 	PAEC Past Practices Before Summer 2019
PAEC’s academic year consists of four quarters. At all relevant times, the fall,
winter, and spring quarters have been 12 weeks long, while the summer quarter has
been either five or six weeks long. In 2019, the District began referring to the summer
quarter as the summer “session.”
Prior to the events giving rise to this dispute, the District had an established
past practice for assigning courses to PAEC teachers. Each quarter, the District would
send teachers tentative assignments for the upcoming quarter. Teachers opting to
return the following quarter would submit “intent to return” letters. As part of this
process, the District would assign summer courses to teachers who had taught the
courses in the preceding quarters, except where a PAEC teacher chose to take the
summer off.2 When a vacancy arose, the District would contact teachers in order of
seniority until a teacher accepted the open position.
The parties dispute the extent to which the District’s history of scheduling core
2 While PAEC teachers can choose to take summers off, most work year-round.

4
PAEC courses demonstrated a consistent practice. PAEC teacher Elza Hess testified
that in every quarter from 2010 through 2018 in which she taught, the District assigned
her a morning ESL course scheduled from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Monday through
Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Friday, for a total of 19.5 hours per week.3
PAEC teachers Liliya Berenboim and David Williams generally supported Hess’s
testimony about scheduling, though they did not testify as to their own experiences
with morning core courses. Association witnesses also testified that the District had a
consistent practice of scheduling evening core courses from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Monday through Thursday, meaning that an evening core course ran for 12 hours per
week, and a teacher with both a morning and evening core course worked 31.5 hours
per week.4
District witnesses, on the other hand, asserted that the District did not
historically follow a consistent practice regarding morning core course schedules in
the summer quarter. To support this assertion, the District introduced an exhibit
showing weekly PAEC course hours for teachers working in summer 2018, which was
the summer that Hess did not work. Out of 29 PAEC teachers working that summer,
four taught 12 hours per week, four taught 19.5 hours per week, and one taught
31.5 hours per week. The other 20 teachers taught the following hours per week,
respectively: 3, 6, 6, 10, 10, 10, 11, 12.5, 15, 15.5, 15.5, 16, 19, 20, 20, 23.5, 25.5, 30,
3 Hess decided not to work in the summer of 2018.
4 These calculations disregard the July 4 holiday, which apparently fell within
each year’s summer session. We infer the District more likely than not treated the
holiday in the same manner each summer, meaning we can safely disregard its
impact.

5
32, and 37.5. While the exhibit shows that some of these teachers taught non-core
courses, that distinction does not appear to explain other instances in which the
summer 2018 exhibit undercuts the Association’s position. For instance, while one
teacher taught “ESL Low Inter” for 19.5 hours per week and a second taught “ESL
High Inter” for 19.5 hours per week, the record also revealed these variations: one
teacher taught “ESL High Beg” Monday and Thursday for 6 hours per week, a second
taught “ESL Convers” Monday through Thursday for 15 hours per week, a third taught
“ESL AM” Monday through Friday for 12.5 hours a week, and a fourth taught “ESL”
Monday through Wednesday for 11 hours per week. The record includes no other
exhibit purporting to show pre-2019 summer PAEC course hours.
Both parties’ witnesses testified to summer quarter schedule changes the
District made during the 2008-2009 recession, as well as other changes the District
made in the summers of 2015 and 2016. We discuss this evidence further, post.
III. 	The Events Giving Rise to This Dispute
On May 14, 2019, PAEC Vice Principal Danny Lockwood e-mailed staff as
follows:
“Dear Staff,
“We are making some adjustments to how we hire summer
school teachers. We will be posting all teaching positions.
This process will assure fairness, giving everyone an
opportunity to apply. We will be posting internally only for
ESL teachers, ABE/GED/HS Diploma teachers. The
postings should be on EdJoin by Wednesday or Thursday.
This will be a short turn around, so please be sure to apply
as soon as possible.
“Thank you. Danny”

6
Lockwood testified that the adjustments he mentioned in his e-mail referred to a
new requirement that teachers apply to teach summer courses. The District set a
June 3 application deadline. Prior to May 2019, the District had not required PAEC
teachers to apply for summer school assignments.
The District’s job posting for PAEC summer courses notified applicants that
teachers with morning core courses would work from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Monday
through Thursday, while teachers with evening core courses would work from
6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday.
IV. 	This Charge, Related Grievances, and the Parties’ Subsequent Negotiations
The Association filed this charge in October 2019. PERB’s Office of the General
Counsel issued a complaint, and the District filed its answer.
The Association also filed two or three grievances relating to the summer
quarter changes. The Association did not seek to arbitrate these grievances, and the
District has not at any time asserted that PERB should defer this matter to arbitration.
We express no opinion as to whether the District could have established an affirmative
defense based on deferral.
After the District answered the complaint but before the formal hearing, the
parties successfully negotiated two new sections in Article 6 of their CBA. The new
sections, which relate to the District’s process for assigning summer PAEC courses,
provide as follows:
“6.1.7.3 	Unit members who are currently teaching in
an Adult Education assignment during the school year,
those unit members shall be selected to continue to teach
during the Adult Education Summer Session, provided they
have the appropriate credential and the same or similar
course is offered. If more than one member applies for the

7
same position, selection shall be considered in the order
listed below under ‘Selection Criteria’. Each subsequent
criterion will only be considered if a tie between the
applicant’s [sic] results from the preceding criteria, and if
there are more applicants than available positions.
“Selection Criteria:
“1. 	Credential in the applied subject; and
“2. 	Recent experience taught in the subject area in the
last three (3) years; and
“6.1.7.4 	If all else is equal under the Selection Criteria
in 6.1.7.3 above, then seniority.”
On March 17 and 18, 2021, the ALJ held a formal hearing via videoconference.
On April 14, 2022, the ALJ issued a proposed decision finding that the District violated
EERA. The District timely excepted to the proposed decision. The Association filed a
response to the District’s exceptions but no exceptions of its own.
DISCUSSION
When resolving exceptions to a proposed decision, the Board applies a de novo
standard of review. (County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2629-M, p. 6.)
We review the entire record and are free to make different factual findings and reach
different legal conclusions than those in the proposed decision. (County of
Sacramento (2020) PERB Decision No. 2745-M, p. 10.)
To prove a prima facie case of an unlawful unilateral change, a charging party
must show that: (1) the employer changed or deviated from the status quo; (2) the
change or deviation concerned a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the
change or deviation had a generalized effect or continuing impact on represented
employees’ terms or conditions of employment; and (4) the employer reached its
decision without first providing adequate advance notice of the proposed change to

8
the union and bargaining in good faith over the decision, at the union’s request, until
the parties reached an agreement or a lawful impasse. (Bellflower Unified School
District (2021) PERB Decision No. 2796, p. 9 (Bellflower).) Given that the District no
longer contests the third or fourth elements, we analyze whether its decisions fell
within the scope of representation and whether they changed the status quo.
I. 	Scope of Representation
EERA’s scope of representation includes “matters relating to wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employment.” (EERA, § 3543.2,
subd. (a)(1).) The District, relying on Redwoods Community College District (1994)
PERB Decision No. 1047 (Redwoods), argues that the challenged decisions were
outside the scope of representation because PAEC teachers are temporary
employees under Education Code section 44929.25, and thus are not entitled to any
particular hours of work. In Redwoods, the Board found that a community college
lawfully implemented a new rehiring policy for part-time, temporary instructors, as the
policy fell outside the scope of representation and did not amount to a change in the
status quo. For the following reasons, we overrule Redwoods and conclude that
rehiring, reelection, and/or course assignment processes for temporary teachers fall
within the scope of representation, as do temporary teachers’ work hours.
EERA applies without qualification to any “public school employee,” which the
statute defines as “a person employed by a public school employer.” (EERA, § 3540.1,
subd. (j).) EERA therefore applies to both temporary and permanent employees. (See,
e.g., Davis Joint Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 474, p. 24 [finding
“the District violated EERA by its refusal to negotiate about temporary teachers”].)
Nonetheless, in Redwoods, supra, PERB Decision No. 1047, the Board accepted the

9
employer’s position that reelection or rehiring of part-time, temporary employees was
a management prerogative that fell outside the scope of representation. (Id. at
pp. 17-18.) To support this proposition, the Board cited only inapposite precedent
involving layoffs. Three years later, the Board analyzed largely analogous issues and,
without citing Redwoods, concluded that reemployment of temporary employees falls
within the scope of representation. (Fremont Unified School District (1997) PERB
Decision No. 1240, adopting proposed decision at pp. 26-38 (Fremont).) Fremont is
consistent with precedent holding that an employer must bargain over decisions
related to work opportunities and qualifications unless the employer is doing no more
than complying with a change in external law. (County of Sacramento, supra, PERB
Decision No. 2745-M, pp. 17-18; County of Orange (2019) PERB Decision
No. 2663-M, pp. 8-15.) Accordingly, we overrule Redwoods and conclude that the
District’s decision to institute a new application requirement for summer PAEC
courses fell within the scope of representation.5
5 Even where an employer’s decision involves a managerial decision regarding
the nature and extent of a public service, the employer nonetheless must bargain over
effects on terms or conditions of employment. (Oxnard Unified School District (2022)
PERB Decision No. 2803, p. 49 (Oxnard).) In Redwoods, supra, PERB Decision
No. 1047, the employer made no such managerial decision. Rather, it kept public
services the same while reallocating which employees did the work and categorically
excluding certain employees from working more than 40 hours per week. (Id. at
pp. 4-9.) The employer therefore had a decision bargaining obligation. Moreover,
Redwoods wrongly implied that an employer’s past practice of making discretionary
decisions on terms and conditions of employment, based on financial and other
considerations, means that it maintains the status quo when it makes further similar
discretionary decisions. (Id. at pp. 15-17.) That implication misrepresents settled
principles of the dynamic status quo doctrine. (See County of Kern (2018) PERB
Decision No. 2615-M, pp. 6-9 [employer’s changes are consistent with a dynamic
status quo only if the changes follow a nondiscretionary pattern of change].)

10
Turning to hours of work, precedent distinguishes between employee work
hours and the days on which students must attend school, requiring bargaining over
the former but not the latter. (Oxnard, supra, PERB Decision No. 2803, p. 44, citing
Oakland Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 367, p. 34.) This rule
reflects that teacher service hours need not coincide precisely with instructional dates,
and it is possible that accommodations can be made at the bargaining table to ensure
maintenance of the school year through innovative planning. (Ibid., citing Palos
Verdes Peninsula Unified School District/Pleasant Valley Unified School District
(1979) PERB Decision No. 96, pp. 31-32.) Thus, Redwoods, supra, PERB Decision
No. 1047, was wrong to the extent it suggests that an employer, relying on financial
and management considerations, need not bargain over the paid hours it assigns to
employees. (See id. at pp. 17-18.) Accordingly, any change to the status quo of PAEC
summer teachers’ paid hours was within the scope of representation.
II. 	Change in, or Deviation from, the Status Quo
A union can prove that an employer changed or deviated from the status quo by
showing: (1) deviation from a written agreement or written policy, (2) a change in
established past practice, or (3) a newly created policy or application or enforcement
of existing policy in a new way. (Bellflower, supra, PERB Decision No. 2796, p. 10.) If
a union argues that past practice is not merely evidence as to the meaning of a written
agreement or policy, but rather independently establishes the status quo that the
employer changed, the past practice must have been “regular and consistent” or
“historic and accepted.” (County of Merced (2020) PERB Decision No. 2740-M, p. 13,

11
fn. 9 (Merced).)6
Here, the complaint primarily alleged that the District unilaterally reduced
certain PAEC teachers’ paid hours and required PAEC teachers to apply for summer
courses.7 We consider each claim in turn.
A. 	Paid Hours
Notably, the Association does not assert that the District deviated from a written
agreement or written policy regarding PAEC teachers’ paid work hours in the summer
quarter. Nor does the Association assert that the District’s summer 2019 PAEC
schedule created a new policy or applied or enforced an existing policy in a new way.
We express no opinion as to whether the record could have supported any such
contention. Because the Association contends only that the District’s summer 2019
PAEC schedule deviated from an unwritten past practice, the Association has the
burden to prove a past practice that was “regular and consistent” or “historic and
accepted.” (Merced, supra, PERB Decision No. 2740-M, p. 13, fn. 9.)
The Association claims that, prior to summer 2019, the District had a regular
and consistent past practice of assigning 19.5 paid hours per week to PAEC teachers
6 In contrast, when analyzing past practice to help interpret ambiguous
language, such evidence is but one contract interpretation tool and the past practice
therefore need not be definitive to have persuasive value. (Merced, supra, PERB
Decision No. 2740-M, p. 13, fn. 9.)
7 The complaint also alleged that the District changed the summer quarter’s end
date. While the Association initially pointed to evidence that multiple summer courses
ended on Thursday of the sixth and final week, that evidence was consistent with
those courses’ weekly schedule throughout the summer quarter. The evidence did not
show that every course was complete by the final Thursday of the quarter. The
Association eventually abandoned this complaint allegation, and we dismiss it.

12
with summer morning core courses. Precedent does not establish a bright line rule as
to what length of time is relevant in evaluating a claimed “regular and consistent” or
“historic and accepted” past practice. The answer depends on context, including
whether the employment term at issue is one that employees experience on a weekly
or monthly basis, or less regularly such as on an annual or sporadic basis. For an
issue that arises only once per year, such as here, precedent does not dictate a
precise lower limit of required historical consistency, but the Board has held that seven
years of consistency is sufficient where the issue involves annual wages. (Region 2
Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee & California Superior Courts of
Region 2 (2020) PERB Decision No. 2701-I, p. 56.) We therefore do not afford
substantial weight to the District’s practice during the 2008-2009 recession, as that
was a decade prior to 2019. Furthermore, while the PAEC summer quarter lasted only
five weeks in 2015 and 2016—years that are much more relevant to our inquiry—that
evidence establishes only a reduction in the number of workweeks, which is a
separate employment term from the number of paid hours per week.8
The parties’ witnesses dispute whether the District had a past practice of
providing summer PAEC teachers with 19.5 hours per week for a morning core
course. The District introduced an exhibit showing PAEC teachers’ weekly hours in
8 Both the number of workweeks and the number of hours per week can impact
compensation, but they are separate employment terms. For instance, a summer
quarter teacher may find 100 paid hours in five weeks preferable to 100 paid hours
over six weeks, since the former preserves a larger portion of the teacher’s summer
vacation. We mention this possibility only by way of example. Employees may hold a
variety of views on such topics, which helps to illustrate the import of collective
bargaining.

13
summer 2018—the most recent summer before the District allegedly made the
changes and the only recent summer in which Hess did not work. As noted ante at
pages 4-5, the summer 2018 exhibit appears to support the District’s contention that it
had no regular and consistent past practice of always assigning a set number of hours
per core course, or at least that it had altered any such practice by summer 2018, well
outside the statute of limitations. While there could be explanations for the summer
2018 exhibit outside of the record before us, and it is also possible the Association
only learned of a 2018 unilateral change shortly before summer 2019, the Association
has not offered any such explanations or arguments. Nor did the Association introduce
evidence of PAEC teachers’ paid hours for summer morning core courses prior to
2018, other than those of Hess. Thus, the Association failed to meet its burden to
prove the District had a regular and consistent past practice of always assigning 19.5
paid hours per week to PAEC teachers with summer morning core courses. We
therefore reverse the proposed decision in part and find that the Association did not
prove a unilateral change with respect to summer PAEC teachers’ paid hours.
B. 	Application Requirement
The District largely accedes to the ALJ’s conclusion that the Association proved
a prima facie unilateral change based on the new requirement that PAEC teachers
apply for summer courses when previously they merely had to submit an intent to
return. Even had the District challenged this conclusion, the District’s decision
deviated from the status quo because it changed a regular and consistent unwritten
practice, was a new policy, or applied or enforced existing policy in a new way.

14
III. 	The District’s Contractual Waiver Defense
The ALJ rejected the District’s contractual waiver defense under Marysville
Joint Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 314 (Marysville), and the
District did not contest the ALJ’s conclusion. Even had the District preserved this
defense in its exceptions, the record does not support it.
Marysville, supra, PERB Decision No. 314 held that an employer may prove a
contractual waiver defense based on clear and unambiguous contract language, even
where the employer’s practice has not followed such contract language in the past.
(Id. at pp. 9-10; see generally City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M,
pp. 14-21 [clarifying multiple aspects of the contractual waiver defense].) Here, CBA
Article 17, “Summer School,” does not mention adult education and does not
constitute a clear and unambiguous waiver as to any PAEC terms or conditions of
employment. CBA Article 6, “Hours of Employment,” mentions adult education in one
provision: “The work day for [an] adult education unit member shall be according to
the number of classes that are assigned to the unit member.” That language does not
clearly and unambiguously waive the right to bargain over a new application
requirement. Accordingly, the District has not proven a contractual waiver defense.
IV. 	Remedy
The appropriate remedy for an employer’s unlawful unilateral change normally
includes a cease-and-desist order, restoring the status quo ante, a bargaining order,
and make-whole relief including back pay, benefits, and interest. (Pasadena Area
Community College District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2444, pp. 23-24.) We order
each of these standard remedies here, while clarifying two compliance-related issues.
First, while the record does not suggest that any PAEC teacher incurred harm

15
because of the District’s new application requirement, we afford a successful charging
party the opportunity to prove losses in compliance hearings, unless the record has
proven that there was no such harm. (County of Santa Clara (2021) PERB Decision
No. 2799-M, p. 29.) Here, the record to date does not demonstrate harm, but it also
does not disprove that such harm could have occurred. Therefore, if the Association
asserts that the new application requirement harmed one or more employees, the
compliance officer shall allow the parties to introduce relevant evidence.
Second, while the parties were litigating this case, they negotiated relevant new
CBA provisions. We have tailored our order to honor those provisions, and the
compliance officer shall consider the extent to which they impact the District’s
obligations. (See, e.g., County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2799-M,
p. 30, fn. 15 [parties’ subsequent negotiations may cut off certain remedial obligations
if such negotiations resulted in a mutual agreement].)
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the entire record in the case, the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB) finds that the Pittsburg Unified School District
violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), Government Code
section 3543.5, subdivision (c), and derivatively violated subdivisions (a) and (b),
when it unilaterally required Adult Education teachers to apply for summer courses
without affording the Pittsburg Education Association notice and an adequate
opportunity to bargain. All other allegations are dismissed.
Pursuant to EERA section 3541.5, subdivision (c), it is hereby ORDERED that
the District, its governing board, and its representatives shall:

16
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Instituting new qualifications or procedures for assigning courses
to Adult Education teachers without affording the Association notice and an adequate
opportunity to meet and negotiate.
2. 	Interfering with bargaining unit employees’ right to be represented
by the Association.
3. 	Interfering with the Association’s right to represent bargaining unit
employees.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS TO EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF EERA:
1. 	To the extent consistent with the parties’ subsequently negotiated
contractual provisions, and upon the Association’s request, rescind the May 2019
policy requiring Adult Education teachers to apply to teach summer session courses.
2. 	Upon the Association’s request, meet and negotiate regarding
policies on assigning summer courses to Adult Education teachers.
3. 	Make whole all affected employees for any losses incurred
because of the District’s 2019 decision to require Adult Education teachers to apply for
summer courses. Any make-whole amounts shall be augmented by interest at
7 percent per year.
4. 	Within 10 workdays following the date this decision is no longer
subject to appeal, post at all locations where notices to employees in the Association’s
bargaining unit are posted, copies of the Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. An
authorized agent of the District must sign the Notice, indicating that the District will
comply with the terms of this Order. The District shall maintain the posting for a period

17
of 30 consecutive workdays and shall also post it by electronic message, intranet,
internet site, and other electronic means the District uses to communicate with
employees in the Association’s bargaining unit. The District shall take reasonable
steps to ensure that the Notice is not reduced in size, altered, defaced, or covered
with any other material.9
5. 	Provide PERB’s General Counsel, or the General Counsel’s
designee, with written notification of all actions taken to comply with this Order, as well
as any such further reports as the General Counsel or designee may direct; and
concurrently serve the Association with all such notifications and reports.
Chair Banks and Member Shiners joined in this Decision.
9 In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Respondent shall notify PERB’s
Office of the General Counsel (OGC) in writing if, due to an extraordinary
circumstance such as an emergency declaration or shelter-in-place order, a majority
of employees at one or more work locations are not physically reporting to their work
location as of the time the physical posting would otherwise commence. If Respondent
so notifies OGC, or if Charging Party requests in writing that OGC alter or extend the
posting period, require additional notice methods, or otherwise adjust the manner in
which employees receive notice, OGC shall investigate and solicit input from all
parties. OGC shall provide amended instructions to the extent appropriate to ensure
adequate publication of the Notice, such as directing Respondent to commence
posting within 10 workdays after a majority of employees have resumed physically
reporting on a regular basis; directing Respondent to mail the Notice to all employees
who are not regularly reporting to any work location due to the extraordinary
circumstance, including those who are on a short term or indefinite furlough, are on
layoff subject to recall, or are working from home; or directing Respondent to mail the
Notice to employees with whom it does not communicate through electronic means.

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. SF-CE-3366-E, Pittsburg Education
Association, CTA/NEA v. Pittsburg Unified School District, in which all parties had the
right to participate, the Public Employment Relations Board found that the Pittsburg
Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA),
Government Code section 3543.5, subdivisions (a), (b) and (c), when it unilaterally
required Adult Education teachers to apply for summer courses without affording the
Pittsburg Education Association notice and an adequate opportunity to bargain.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice, and we
will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Instituting new qualifications or procedures for assigning courses
to Adult Education teachers without affording the Association notice and an adequate
opportunity to meet and negotiate.
2. 	Interfering with bargaining unit employees’ right to be represented
by the Association.
3. 	Interfering with the Association’s right to represent bargaining unit
employees.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS TO EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF EERA:
1. 	To the extent consistent with the parties’ subsequently negotiated
contractual provisions, and upon the Association’s request, rescind the May 2019
policy requiring Adult Education teachers to apply to teach summer session courses.
2. 	Upon the Association’s request, meet and negotiate regarding
policies on assigning summer courses to Adult Education teachers.
3. 	Make all affected employees whole for any losses incurred
because of our 2019 decision to require Adult Education teachers to apply for summer
courses. Any make-whole amounts shall be augmented by interest at 7 percent per
year.

2
Dated: _____________________ 	PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
By: _________________________________
Authorized Agent
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST 30
CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED.