City of Inglewood (PERB A390M)

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

a een
DECISION OF THE ey }
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD ped
CITY OF INGLEWOOD,
Employer, Case No. LA-SV-166-M
and Administrative Appeal
INGLEWOOD POLICE CIVILIANS PERB Order No. Ad-390-M
ASSOCIATION,
September 28, 2011
Petitioner,
and

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL 721,,

Exclusive Representative.

Appearances: Bergman & Dacey by Mitchell C. Frederick, Attorney, for City of Inglewood;
City Employees Associates by Jeffrey W. Natke, Labor Relations Representative, for
Inglewood Police Civilians Association; Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld by Jacob J. White,
Attorney, for Service Employees International Union, Local 721.
Before Martinez, Chair; McKeag and Huguenin, Members.
DECISION

MARTINEZ, Chair: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal of a Board agent’s administrative determination (attached) on a severance
petition filed by the Inglewood Police Civilians Association (IPCA) with the Board. The
petition seeks to sever thirteen classifications from the City of Inglewood’s (City) General
Employees Bargaining Unit, which is exclusively represented by Service Employees
International Union, Local 721 (SEIU). The Board agent dismissed the petition for lack of

Board jurisdiction because severance can be achieved under the City’s Resolution No. 7117

governing employer-employee relations.

We have reviewed the administrative determination, IPCA's appeal, SEIU's opposition,
and the entire record in light of the relevant law. 1 Based on this review, we find the Board
agent's order to show cause and dismissal of petition to be well reasoned, adequately supported
by the record and in accordance with applicable law. Accordingly, the Board affirms the
dismissal ofIPCA's petition, and adopts the Board agent's order to show cause and dismissal
of petition as the decision of the Board itself.
ORDER
The severance petition in Case No. LA-SV-166-M is hereby DISMISSED.
Members McKeag and Huguenin joined in this Decision.
Given the outcome reached by the Board in this case, the issue of whether there is
good cause to excuse the City's untimely response to the appeal need not be addressed.
2

PUBLIC EMPLOYMEN·J' RELATIONS BOARD
r'. - ·-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA (
Qm Los Angeles Regional Office
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2804
Fax: (8 I 8) 551-2820
·
April 28, 2011
Jeffrey Natke, Labor Representative
City Employees Associates
2918 E. 7th Street
Long Beach, CA 90804
Jacob J. White, Attorney
Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1907
Michele M. Goldsmith, Attorney
Bergman & Dacey, Inc.
10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90024
·
Re: City of Inglewood
Case No. LA-SV-166-M
DISMISSAL OF PETITION
Dear Interested Parties:
/ EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
The above-referenced petition-was filed with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or
Board) on October 25, 2010. The Inglewood Police Civilian Association (Association) seeks to
sever from the City oflnglewood's (City's) existing General Bargaining Unit a unit consisting of
Custody Officers, Payroll Technicians, Property Officers, Police Training Assistants,
Administrative Aides, Subpoena Clerks, Senior Forensic Specialists, Forensic Specialists, and
Senior Administrative Aides.
On March 15, 2011, PERB issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) requiring the Association to
show why the Association's severance petition should not be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction.
A copy of the OSC is included as an attachment to this letter. PERB afforded the Association
until April I, 2011 to file a response to the OSC. After receiving an extension of time, the
Association filed its response on April 15, 2011.
In the OSC, PERB explained that it only has authority to conduct representation proceedings for
parties subject to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA or Act) in such cases where a public
agency has not adopted local rules under which severance can be achieved. (PERB Regulation

LA-SV-166-M
April 28, 2011
Page 2
61000. 1) In County of Orange (2010) PERB Decision No. 2138, the Board held that PERB has
the authority to assert jurisdiction and apply its own representation rules only when the agency's
local rules contain no provision that can accomplish what the petitioner is seeking without
placing an undue burden on the petitioner. PERB also explained that, in this case, the City
asserted that severance has been achieved by employee organizations using the City's process to
become the recognized employee organization of appropriate bargaining units, under City
Employee Employer Relation (EER) 7117, Article II, section 4.
The Association does not challenge the accuracy of any of the facts relied upon in the OSC,
including the finding that severance has previously been achieved under City EER, 7117, Article
II, section 4. The Association contends that PERB, nonetheless, has authority over the instant
petition under the Board's holding in County of Siskiyou/Siskiyou County Superior Court (2010)
PERB Decision No. 2113-M (Siskiyou). 	In that case, the issue was whether PERB had the
authority to address a petition for amendment of certification. The county employer argued that
PERB lacked jurisdiction over that petition because amendment of certification could be
achieved under the county's decertification process. The Board rejected this argument because it
found amendment of certification and decertification to be fundamentally different processes.
(Ibid.) More specifically, the Board found that:
a decertification petition seeks to oust the current recognized
employee organization and replace it with either a different
employee organization or no representation. (Jamestown
Elementary School District (1989) PERB Order No. Ad-187;
Ivzternational Union of Operating Engineers, State of California
Locals 3, 12, 39 and 501, AFL-CIO (California State Employees'
Association, SEJU, AFL-CJO) (1984) PERB Decision No. 390-S.)
Amendment of certification, on the other hand, "is appropriate
where there is no change in the basic identity of the representative
chosen by the employees but, rather, where the change is one of
form and not of substance." (Ventura Community College District
(1982) PERB Order No. Ad-130.)
The Board in that case held that it would be an undue burden to require a union to participate in
the relatively onerous decertification process simply to obtain official recognition of a change in
the organization's form. Accordingly, the Board applied its amendment of certification rules to
the union's petition. (Ibid.)
The present situation is factually dissimilar from Siskiyou, supra, PERB Decision No. 2113-M.
In this case, the issue is whether what PERB defines as severance can be achieved under the
City's local rules for establishing a recognized employee organization of an appropriate
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. PERB Regulations
are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8 section 3100 I et seq. The text the
MMBA and PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.

LA-SV-166-M
April 28, 2011
Page 3
bargaining unit. Unlike in Siskiyou, supra, PERB Decision No. 2113-M, the severance process
is very similar in purpose to the recognition process. 2 According
to
PERB Regulations, both the
severance and the petition for certification processes are designed
to
allow an employee
organization to become the recognized employee organization
of
an appropriate bargaining unit.
(PERB Regulations 61210 et seq.; 61400 et seq.) In addition, both involve similar requirements
with many
of
the same steps, including the requirement to file a petition, provide proof
of
employee support for the petition, and seek the creation
of
an appropriate bargaining unit. (Ibid.)
The only major difference is that PERB's petition for certification process is used to create a new
bargaining unit consisting
of
unrepresented employees whereas PERB's severance process is
used to create a bargaining unit consisting
of
employees that are already members
of
an existing
bargaining unit. (Ibid.)
As found in the March 15, 2011 OSC, City EER 7117, Article II, section 4
is
also a process for
recognizing the bargaining representative
of
an appropriate bargaining unit. The City's rule,
however, makes no distinction between whether the employees in the proposed unit are
unrepresented or whether they are part
of
an existing bargaining unit. Moreover, like PERB' s
severance and petition for certification process, City EER 7117, Article II, section 4 requires that
a petition be filed, that the petitioner demonstrate employee support, and the proposed unit be
appropriate. Because
of
the similarities in both purpose and process, the present case
is
distinguishable from Siskiyou, supra, PERB Decision No. 2113-M. In addition, unlike in
Siskiyou, supra, PERB Decision No. 2113-M, it is undisputed in this case that severance has
actually been achieved under City EER 7117, Article II, section
4.
The Association also contends that PERB should assert jurisdiction over its severance petition
because the City only demonstrated one instance where EER 7117, Article II, section 4 was used
in a severance context. The Association argues that the holding in County
of
Orange, supra,
PERB Decision No. 2138 does not apply because in that case, severance was achieved under the
employer's local rules multiple times. The Association characterizes the City's previous
severance as an "anomaly." However, the Board's holding in County
of
Orange, supra, PERB
Decision No. 2138 was not dependent on severance being achieved under the employer's local
rules on multiple occasions. Rather, the central issue considered by the Board was whether
severance could be achieved under the employer's local rules without placing an undue burden
on the petitioner. (Ibid.) In the present case, the Association does not dispute that severance can
be and has been achieved under EER 7117, Article II, section 4. Nor does the Association allege
that application of the City's local rules places an undue burden on the Association's ability to
pursue severance. Therefore, the Association's petition is dismissed.
2 Under PERB Regulations, the process for becoming the recognized employee
organization of a new bargaining unit is called "Petition for Certification." (PERB Regulation
61210.)

LA-SV-166-M
April 28, 2011
Page 4
Right
of
Appeal
An appeal
of
this decision to the Board itself may be made within ten (10) calendar days
following the date
of
service
of
this decision. 	(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32360.) To be timely
filed, the original and five (5) copies
of
any appeal must be filed with the Board itself at the
following address:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business day.
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8,
§§
32135, subd. (a) and 32130; Gov.
Code,§
11020, subd. (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 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. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8,
§ 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also CaL Code Regs., tit. 8,
§§
32090 and 32130.)
The appeal must state the specific issues
of
procedure, fact, law or rationale that are appealed
and must state the grounds for the appeal (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32360, subd. (c)). An
appeal will not automatically prevent the Board from proceeding in this case. A party seeking
a stay
of
any activity may file such a request with its administrative appeal, and must include
all pertinent facts and justifications for the request (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 323 70).
If
a timely appeal is filed, any other party may file with the Board an original and five (5)
copies
of
a response to the appeal within ten (10) calendar days following the date
of
service
of
the appeal (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32375).
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding and on the Los Angeles Regional Office regional office. A "proof
of
service" must
accompany each copy
of
a document served upon a party or filed with the Board itself (see
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32140 for the required contents). The document will be considered
properly "served" when personally delivered or deposited in the mail or deposited with a
delivery service and properly addressed. A document may also be concurrently served via
facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32135, subd
..
(c).)

LA-SV-166-M
April 28, 2011
Page 5
Extension
of
Time
A request for an extension
of
time in which to file an appeal or opposition to an appeal with the
Board itself must be in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A
request for an extension must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration
of
the time required for filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and,
if
known, the position
of
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by
proof
of
service
of
the request upon each party (Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8,
§ 32132).
Sincerely,4
-~--~.~./	
..,,
	/
,/
~~..,,•·"'"
u
Regional Attorney
EC

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 9li03-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2804
Fax: (818) 551-2820
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
March 15, 2011
Jeffrey Natke, Labor Representative
City Employees Associates
2918 E. 7th Street
Long Beach, CA 90804
Jacob J. White, Attorney
Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1907
Michele M. Goldsmith
Bergman & Dacey, Inc.
10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Re: Case No. LA-SV-166-M
City Of Inglewood
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Dear Interested Parties:
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
The above-referenced severance petition was filed by Inglewood Police Civilians Association
(Association) with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) on October 25,
2010. The Association seeks to sever from the City oflnglewood's (City's) existing General
Bargaining Unit a unit consisting of Custody Officers, Payroll Technicians, Property Officers,
Police Training Assistants, Administrative Aides, Subpoena Clerks, Senior Forensic
Specialists, Forensic Specialists, and Senior Administrative Aides. Service Employees
International Union, Local 721 (SEIU) is the current recognized employee organization of the
General Bargaining Unit.
On October 29, 2010, PERB sent the City a letter inquiring whether the City has adopted local
rules pursuant to Meyers-Milias-Brown Act section 3507.1 (MMBA)1 governing the process for
severing positions from existing City bargaining units. On November 9, 2010, the City filed a
response stating that the City Employee Employer Resolution 7117 (EER 7117) addresses
representation matters but does not have a process specifically for processing severance petitions
or unit modification petitions. The City further explained EER 7117, Article II, sections 4
through 8 contain a process for the recognition of new bargaining units and section IO includes a
corresponding process for determining the appropriateness of proposed bargaining units.
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. The text of the
MMBA and PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.

LA-SV-166-M
March 15, 2011
Page 2
EER 7117, Article II, section 4 allows for an employee organization to become the recognized
employee organization
of
an appropriate bargaining unit by filing a petition with the City
Employee Relations Officer along with a statement that the employee organization possesses
proof
of
employee support
of
at least 30 percent
of
the employees in the proposed bargaining
unit. According to section
5,
the City must issue a determination regarding whether a petition
has complied with the filing requirements in section 4 and whether the bargaining unit proposed
by the petition is appropriate.
	If
the petition
is
properly filed and
if
it seeks to create an
appropriate bargaining unit, section 7 outlines a process for holding
.an
election.
The City's November 9, 2010 response also included records
of
an earlier petition filed by the
Association with the City under EER 7117, Article II, section
4.
	In this earlier petition, the
Association sought to create a unit similar to the unit proposed in the present matter. On July 20,
2010, the City stated that it was not appropriate for the Association to file a unit modification
petition because BER 7117 does not contain a process with that name. The City then stated that
it was rejecting the Association's petition because the petition would not be timely
if
filed
according to the severance process contained in PERB Regulation 61010 and because the
petition sought to create an inappropriate bargaining unit under EER 7117, Article II, section
10.
After receipt
of
the City's November 9, 2010 letter and accompanying documents, PERB sent
a letter to all parties seeking further information. On December 3, 2010, SEIU filed a letter
asserting its position that severance can be achieved through EER 7117, Article II. On
December 6, 2010, the City filed a letter stating that PERB should dismiss the instant petition
because the Association has petitioned for an inappropriate bargaining unit. On December 6,
2010, SEIU filed another letter providing further support for its earlier stated argument. 	SEIU
further stated that the EER 7117 is reasonable.
An informal conference was held on February 8, 2011. During the informal conference, all
parties acknowledged that the City has previously allowed certain positions to be severed from
one
of
the City's existing bargaining units. PERB requested that the parties provide documents
regarding this previous severance. On February 16, 2011, the City filed
\Vith
PERB a set
of
documents regarding the Inglewood Police Civilian Management Association's (IPCMA's)
petition to sever 17 positions from the existing general management employees bargaining unit
represented by the Inglewood Management Employees Association (IMEO) and to create a
new bargaining unit.2 The petition, filed on or around May 19, 2009, was filed as a petition for
recognition and unit modification under the City's EER, Article II, section 4. 	On November 9,
2009, the City informed the IPCMA that its petition complied with City EER, Article II,
section 4 and that it was seeking to create an appropriate bargaining unit under section 10.
Thereafter, an election was held pursuant to EER, Article II, section 7. The included
documents do not specify the outcome
of
the election, but the parties do not dispute that
IPCMA is the recognized employee organization of the bargaining unit claimed in the May
2009 petition.
2 IPCMA's petition was filed by the City Employees Associates, the same organization
that filed the instant petition on behalf of the Association.

LA-SV-166-M
March 15, 2011
Page 3
Discussion:
As
explained in PERB
's
October 29, 2010 letter, the City and its employees are subject to the
MMBA. PERB Regulations at 61400 et seq. provide for the processing
of
severance petitions
by PERB.3 However, pursuant to PERB Regulation 61000, PERB will only conduct
representation proceedings in such cases where a public agency has not adopted local rules
under which severance can be achieved.
In County
of
Orange (2010) PERB Decision No. 2138, the Board interpreted PERB Regulation
61000. 	In that case, PERB found that the "absence
of
an explicit lo.cal representation rule does
not mean, however, that PERB regulations necessarily apply." (Ibid.) Instead, PERB has the
authority to assert jurisdiction and apply its own representation rules "only when the agency's
local rules contain no provision that can accomplish what the petitioner is seeking without
placing an undue burden on the petitioner." (Ibid., citing County
of
Siskiyou/Siskiyou County
Superior Court (2010) PERB Decision No. 2113-M.) The Board in that case found that
severance could be achieved under a county's local rules, even though no express severance
process existed. The Board relied, in part, on the fact that the county applied its local rules to
achieve severance in the past. (Ibid.) In a related case, the Board found that, because
severance could be achieved under the county's local rules, PERB lacked jurisdiction to
process a separate PERB-filed severance petition. (County
of
Orange (2010) PERB Order No.
Ad-386.)
In the present matter, on July 20, 2010, the Association filed a petition directly with the City
seeking to sever the same classifications identified in the present severance petition. The City
rejected this petition based, in part, on its finding that the Association sought to create an
inappropriate bargaining unit under EER 7117, Article II, section I 0. Section 5 allows for the
City to reject representation petitions on this basis. Thereafter, the Association filed the instant
petition with PERB.
A plain reading
of
the language in City ERR 7117 allows for severance to be achieved under
the recognition petition process contained in Article II, section 4. The City's petition for
recognition process is similar to PERB' s petition for certification process contained in PERB
Regulation 61210 et seq. Both processes allow for a public agency to recognize an employee
organization in a proposed bargaining unit upon a showing
of
support from the proposed unit
and a finding that the proposed unit is appropriate. However, under PERB's petition for
certification process, an employee organization may not petition for positions that are already
represented in another established bargaining unit. PERB Regulations contemplate a separate
process for those circumstances. (See PERB Regulation 61400 et seq.)
3 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

LA-SV-166-M
March 15, 2011
Page 4
City EER 7117, Article II, on the other hand, makes no distinction regarding whether the
petitioned-for positions are included in an already-established bargaining unit. Thus, a
reasonable interpretation of this difference is that the EER allows for a single process for
achieving recognition for either unrepresented and represented positions. This conclusion is
supported by the undisputed fact that severance was previously achieved by filing a petition
under City EER 7117, Article II, section 4.4
If severance can be achieved under City EER 7117, then PERB lacks jurisdiction to further
process the Association's petition. (County of Orange, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-386.) In
light of the above, the Association is afforded this opportunity to SHOW CAUSE as to why the
instant petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Factual assertions must be
supported by declarations under penalty of perjury by witnesses with personal knowledge and
should indicate that the witness, if called, could competently testify about the facts asserted. If
the facts asserted are reliant on a writing, the writing must be attached to the declaration and
authenticated therein. Legal argument and supporting materials must be filed with the
undersigned no later than April1, 2011. Service and proof of service pursuant to PERB
Regulation 32140 are required.
Upon receipt of the Association's argument and factual assertions, or the expiration of the time
allowed for same, the undersigned shall contact each of the parties regarding further case
processing steps, including a deadline for responses to the Association's submittal, if
requested.
EC
4 PERB makes no finding regarding whether the City EER 7117 contains a reasonable
process to achieve severance or whether the City violated the MMBA or PERB regulations by
denying the Association's July 20 IO petition. Those issues are not properly raised through this
petition.