Alliance Morgan McKinzie High School et al. (PERB A491E)

ALLIANCE MORGAN MCKINZIE HIGH
SCHOOL,
Employer,
and
UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES,
Petitioner.
ALLIANCE LEICHTMAN-LEVINE FAMILY
FOUNDATION ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
& TECHNOLOGY HIGH SCHOOL,
Employer,
and
UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES,
Petitioner.
Case No. LA-RR-1292-E
Case No. LA-RR-1293-E
PERB Order No. Ad-491
March 23, 2022
Appearances: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton by Karin Dougan and Valerie E.
Alter, Attorneys, and Robert A. Escalante, General Counsel, for Alliance Morgan
McKinzie High School and Alliance Leichtman-Levine Family Foundation
Environmental Science & Technology High School; Bush Gottlieb by Erica Deutsch
and Dexter Rappleye, Attorneys, for United Teachers Los Angeles.
Before Banks, Chair; Shiners, Krantz and Paulson, Members.
DECISION
BANKS, Chair: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal of an administrative determination by Alliance Morgan
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

2
McKinzie High School (Morgan McKinzie) and Alliance Leichtman-Levine Family
Foundational Environmental Science High School (Leichtman-Levine) (collectively,
Charter Schools). Charter Schools are two of approximately 25 schools within the
Alliance College-Ready Public School charter school network (Alliance Network). On
April 9, 2019, UTLA filed two petitions seeking recognition as the exclusive
representative of two separate bargaining units at the Charter Schools.
Finding that UTLA had provided proof of majority support at each Charter
School, PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued an administrative
determination directing the Charter Schools to either recognize UTLA or explain why
the petitioned-for units are not appropriate. Charter Schools stated that individual
school bargaining units were not appropriate and that only a Network-wide bargaining
unit is appropriate. Based on Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High, et
al. (2020) PERB Decision No. 2719 (Alliance I), where we considered and rejected the
argument that the only appropriate unit configuration is Network-wide, OGC rejected
the Charter Schools’ arguments and granted UTLA’s petitions certifying UTLA as the
exclusive representative of the Charter Schools’ certificated employees.1
The Charter Schools timely appealed OGC’s determination. For the reasons
explained below, we find UTLA petitioned to recognize appropriate bargaining units,
1 Approximately one year before UTLA initiated the petitions at issue here, it
had filed separate petitions seeking recognition at three other Alliance Network
schools, and the Board resolved the three earlier petitions in Alliance I. When UTLA
filed its first three petitions, as well as when it filed the two petitions at issue here,
each Alliance school was a separately incorporated corporation that contracted for
services with the Alliance Charter Management Organization (Alliance CMO), a private
nonprofit corporation.

3
and therefore certify UTLA as the exclusive representative of certificated employees at
Morgan McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
On April 9, 2019, UTLA filed two petitions for recognition (Petitions) with PERB
seeking recognition as the exclusive representative of two separate bargaining units of
certificated employees at Morgan McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine. Along with the
Petitions, UTLA provided OGC with proof of majority support from employees at both
schools.
On May 7, 2019, OGC issued an administrative determination that UTLA had
submitted sufficient proof of support for each proposed bargaining unit. The
administrative determination advised the Charter Schools that, because UTLA
evidenced majority support and no valid intervention had been filed, the Charter
Schools were required to recognize the proposed bargaining units unless they
doubted the appropriateness of the units.
On May 13, 2019, the Charter Schools denied recognition in both cases,
asserting that all Alliance Network schools operate as a single employer and that,
pursuant to the statutory presumption set forth in Educational Employment Relations
Act (EERA) section 3545, subdivision (b)(1), the presumptively appropriate unit was a
2 These factual findings are based on this case file, along with the case files in
Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719 and Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology
Academy High, et al. (2022) PERB Decision No. 2809 (Alliance II). PERB may take
administrative notice of its own records and files. (Bellflower Unified School District
(2017) PERB Decision No. 2544, p. 6, citing Santa Clara County Superior Court
(2014) PERB Decision No. 2394-C, p. 16 and Antelope Valley Community College
District (1979) PERB Decision No. 97, p. 23.)

4
Network-wide bargaining unit.3 Arguing that UTLA had not rebutted this presumption,
the Charter Schools stated that the requested single school units were inappropriate.
The Charter Schools requested that PERB investigate this issue pursuant to
section 3544.5 and hold a hearing on the matter. On May 31, 2019, by agreement of
the parties, the Petitions were placed in abeyance pending the Board’s issuance of a
decision in Alliance I.
Before January 1, 2020, each charter school within the Alliance Network was
separately incorporated as a nonprofit public benefit corporation, and each had a
separate board of directors, articles of incorporation, and bylaws. Each individual
corporation held a separate charter with the Los Angeles Unified School District
(LAUSD) to operate within the District’s boundaries. Effective January 1, 2020, the
Alliance Network schools and the Alliance CMO reorganized into a single entity
referred to as Alliance College-Ready Public Schools. The Charter Schools are now
centrally governed by a single Board of Directors and by the same officers.
On May 18, 2020, we issued Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719. In
Alliance I, we took administrative notice of the records in several unfair practice cases
filed before UTLA filed the representation petitions.4 In litigating these charges,
Alliance CMO and Alliance Network schools vigorously disputed that the schools were
part of an integrated operation, and made statements that were inconsistent with later
3 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. All further
statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise specified.
4 We took administrative notice of the files in PERB Case Nos. LA-CE-6061-E,
LA-CE-6073-E, LA-CE-6165-E, and LACE-6204-E.

5
claims at the representation hearing regarding their alleged integration. (Alliance I,
supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, p. 2, fn. 3.) We considered and rejected the Alliance
Network schools’ argument that they constituted a single employer and that the only
appropriate unit was a Network-wide unit.5 (Id. at pp. 35-49.)
We explained multiple bases for this holding, each of which was sufficient to
independently support the decision. Two of the rationales explained in Alliance I,
supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, relied, in part, on the schools’ corporate documents
and their prior representations regarding their individual autonomy. Specifically, we
found that this evidence: (1) warranted application of judicial and equitable estoppel,
since UTLA had relied on Alliance Network schools’ past positions when deciding to
organize on a school-by-school basis; and (2) rendered Alliance Network schools’
arguments unpersuasive. (Id. at pp. 37-49.)
When the petitions were filed, each school’s charter declared:
“[The Charter School] is deemed the exclusive public
school employer of all employees of the charter school for
collective bargaining purposes. As such, Charter School
shall comply with all provisions of the Educational
Employment Relations Act (‘EERA’), and shall act
independently from LAUSD for collective bargaining
purposes. In accordance with the EERA, employees may
join and be represented by an organization of their choice
for collective bargaining purposes.”
5 We noted in our decision that “[t]he hearing to determine the appropriateness
of the petitioned-for units focused almost exclusively on the Charter Schools’
contention that, together with the other Alliance affiliated schools, they constitute a
single-employer, and that the only appropriate unit must encompass all teachers and
counselors within this network.” (Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, p. 8.)

6
Each school’s Administrative Services Agreement (ASA) with the
Alliance CMO provided that the CMO supplies back-office support to the
schools. Each ASA also stated:
“Alliance and the School are independent contractors. No
representations or assertions shall be made or actions
taken by either party that would create any agency, joint
venture, partnership, employment or trust relationship
between the parties with respect to the subject matter of
this Agreement. Except as may be expressly agreed upon
in this Agreement or on a Schedule, neither party has any
authority or power to enter into any agreement, contract or
commitment on behalf of the other, or to create any liability
or obligation whatsoever on behalf of the other, to any third
person or entity.”
With respect to employees, each ASA provided:
“Each party will exercise day-to-day control over and
supervision of their respective employees, including but not
limited to hiring, evaluation, promotion, demotion,
compensation, employee benefits, discipline and discharge.
All work assignments instruction, scheduling, staffing and
direction of the School employees shall be the exclusive
province of the School. Each party is responsible for
obtaining and maintaining worker’s compensation coverage
and unemployment insurance on its employees.”
Finally, each Alliance Network school was separately incorporated under
materially identical articles of incorporation that listed Alliance CMO’s address as each
school’s corporate address for service of process and provided that each school is to
be “operated, exclusively to support The Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools.”
(Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, p. 10.)
In Alliance I, we exhaustively reviewed the above documents and how
information and argument the schools provided in multiple PERB past proceedings

7
undercut their claim that a single, Network-wide bargaining unit was the only allowable
unit structure.6 Among other inconsistencies, we note the following:
• 	At hearing in Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, the Alliance Network
schools argued that the Network was a single employer and a functionally
integrated operation. (Id. at p. 9.) However, in other cases, Alliance CMO and
various Alliance Network schools vigorously disputed that the schools were part
of an integrated operation or single employer enterprise. (Id. at p. 14.) For
instance, in the declaration of Alliance CMO senior employee Howard Lappin
filed in Alliance College-Ready Public Schools (2017) PERB Decision No. 2545,
he claimed that while Alliance CMO offered certain administrative services,
“[a]side from and except for this high-level support, the Charter Schools have
substantial autonomous authority for all aspects of their daily operations, and
exercise that authority independent of Alliance [CMO]” and “the administrators
and [boards] of the Charter Schools are responsible for all aspects of the
schools’ day-to-day operations.”7 (Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719,
p. 14.)
• 	In Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, some Alliance Network schools
averred that Alliance CMO controls labor relations and leads a centralized
6 For a more detailed explanation of the inconsistencies, see Alliance I, supra,
PERB Decision No. 2719 at pages 9 through 22.
7 On January 23, 2018, Alliance CMO’s Chief Advancement Officer, Catherine
Suitor, e-mailed all teachers at every Alliance Network school announcing the “Good
News!” that in Alliance College-Ready Public Schools, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2545, “PERB upheld Alliance’s decentralized school network model that
recognizes the autonomy of local Alliance schools.”

8
management that governs the entire Network. (Id. at p. 16.) The schools further
claimed that each principal answers to Alliance CMO, and while they may
provide input regarding matters such as the academic calendar and
employment agreements for other staff, the ultimate decisions over such
matters are left to Alliance CMO CEO Dan Katzir or his designees. (Ibid.) This
did not align with contentions in prior cases that “each School, not Alliance
[CMO] . . . Determines the number, credentials and areas of expertise of the
teachers and counselors to be hired by the School . . . Maintains sole control
over fiscal planning decisions and decisions concerning expenditures in every
area of School operations, including salaries, benefits, textbooks, classroom
technology, classroom supplies, building maintenance, and security . . .
Determines non-State mandated class offerings . . . Determines whether to
incorporate technology in the classroom, how to incorporate it and what type of
technology to rely upon . . . Decides what vendors or providers to use for the
vast amount of services . . . [and] Determines the composition of its internal
leadership team, which is involved in making most, if not all” of these decisions.
(Italics in original.)
• 	In Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, Alliance Network schools
contended that the CMO is responsible for formulating job descriptions,
employment agreements, calendars, and salary schedules for all employees
within the Alliance Network. (Id. at pp. 16-17.) Alliance Network schools also
contended that the Alliance CMO maintains an employee handbook for all
schools within the Network that controls working conditions throughout the

9
Charter Schools. (Id. at p. 17.) While these claims are contrary to the ASAs
above, they also do not align with claims in prior cases that “each School, not
Alliance [CMO] . . . Determines the number, credentials and areas of expertise
of the teachers and counselors to be hired by the School . . . [and] Maintains
sole control over fiscal planning decisions and decisions concerning
expenditures in every area of School operations, including salaries, benefits,
textbooks, classroom technology, classroom supplies, building maintenance,
and security . . .” (Italics in original.)
• 	In Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, Alliance Network schools
claimed that while principals have authority to impose discipline less than a
suspension or termination, Alliance CMO staff are involved before suspending
or firing an employee. (Id. at p. 18.) However, these contentions were
contradicted in prior cases when Alliance Network schools claimed that “each
School, not Alliance [CMO] . . . Makes all teacher and counselor hiring, firing
and disciplinary decisions.” (Italics in original.) Also, when litigating Alliance
College-Ready Public Schools, supra, PERB Decision No. 2545, Alliance CMO
argued to the ALJ that “[i]t is without question that core employment decisions
concerning the hiring, discipline and firing of teachers and counselors, as well
as decisions regarding teacher and counselor evaluations and contract
renewals are made at the school level.” (Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2719, p. 19.) Furthermore, no principal is involved in the discipline of
another school’s employees. (Id. at p. 18.) Likewise, if a school reaches a

10
settlement with an employee regarding discipline, such information is not
shared with other schools within the Alliance Network. (Ibid.)
• 	In Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, Alliance Network schools
contended that the CMO established roughly consistent salaries throughout the
Network, along with setting stipend ranges for extra duties. (Id. at p. 17.) This is
not aligned with claims from prior cases, where Alliance CMO contended that
principals have substantial discretion to award bonuses without approval from
the Alliance CMO’s human resources department, and are free to depart from
the supposedly centralized, consistent salary schedule in order to match a
teacher’s past salary – decisions not requiring the Alliance CMO’s approval.
(Id. at p. 21.)
• 	In Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, one English language coach and
three psychologists were shared among the entire Alliance Network while they
maintained one employment contract with their home school and the home
school was reimbursed on a pro rata basis. (Id. at p. 19.) Otherwise, there was
no employee interchange. (Id. at pp. 18-19.) In other cases, Alliance Network
schools contended that teachers work only at the school where they were hired,
and they have only one contract within the Network “with no interchange of
personnel with either Alliance or any other school.”
Ultimately, we found that the Alliance Network schools in Alliance I had failed to
demonstrate that a Network-wide bargaining unit was the only appropriate unit
configuration. (Id. at pp. 45-51.) This was, among other reasons, because their past

11
inconsistencies damaged the persuasiveness of their contentions in Alliance I, and the
schools offered no adequate explanation for their inconsistencies. (Id. at pp. 45-49.)
Because the individual certificated bargaining units at each school were an
appropriate configuration, we certified UTLA as the exclusive representative of
certificated employee units at Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High,
Alliance College-Ready Middle Academy No. 5, and Alliance Gertz-Ressler/Richard
Merkin 6-12 Complex.8
Following Alliance I, on May 22, 2020, UTLA requested to remove the instant
Petitions from abeyance and to be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative
at the Charter Schools based on the reasoning in Alliance I. UTLA argued that
collateral estoppel prevents the Charter Schools from relitigating the issues resolved
in Alliance I. Subsequently, the parties, with the assistance of a PERB administrative
law judge (ALJ), met to discuss the Petitions. The cases remained in abeyance
pending these discussions.
On November 23, 2020, UTLA filed an unfair practice charge alleging that the
three Alliance Network schools at issue in UTLA’s first petitions had failed to recognize
and bargain with UTLA as directed in Alliance I. While the Alliance Network schools
maintained they were engaged in a technical refusal to bargain to obtain judicial
review of the units certified in Alliance I, the schools also argued that the Network’s
January 2020 reorganization constituted changed or special circumstances rendering
individual school units inappropriate.
8 We further address the legal conclusions of Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2719, below.

12
On November 24, 2020, UTLA again requested PERB remove the instant cases
from abeyance and requested that UTLA be certified as the exclusive bargaining
representative based on collateral estoppel. On December 9, 2020, the Alliance
Network, on behalf of the Charter Schools, opposed UTLA’s request on the ground
that it did not meet the collateral estoppel elements. On December 11, 2020, UTLA
replied to Alliance Network’s opposition.
On April 28, 2021, OGC issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the Petitions
should not be granted. On May 20, 2021, the Charter Schools responded to the OSC
and filed a supporting declaration of Alliance Chief of Staff Zainab Ali. On June 11,
2021, UTLA filed a response in support of the OSC. On August 13, 2021, OGC issued
an administrative determination granting the Petitions.
On February 28, 2022, we issued Alliance II, supra, PERB Decision No. 2809,
reaffirming our unit determination in Alliance I. In so doing, we considered the
allegation that the January 1, 2020 reorganization constituted changed circumstances
rendering individual school units inappropriate. In Alliance II, the Alliance Network
schools contended that the reorganization emphasized the Network’s status as a
single employer, requiring a Network-wide unit rather than individual school units. We
found that the reorganization did not constitute sufficiently changed circumstances to
warrant finding that a Network-wide bargaining unit is the only allowable unit structure.

13
DISCUSSION
I. 	A hearing is not required to determine the appropriateness of the petitioned-for
units
The Charter Schools contend that a hearing is required to determine whether
the petitioned-for units are appropriate. We disagree. PERB Regulation 33237,
subdivision (a)9 governs the investigation of representation petitions and provides:
“Whenever a petition regarding a representation matter is
filed with the Board, the Board shall investigate and, where
appropriate, conduct a hearing and/or a representation
election or take such other action as deemed necessary to
decide the questions raised by the petition.”
Thus, there is “no guarantee or entitlement to an evidentiary hearing.” (Children
of Promise Preparatory Academy (2013) PERB Order No. Ad-402, p. 16 (Children of
Promise).) Rather, after completing an investigation, the Board agent may either
“determine that sufficient evidence has been submitted to raise a material issue that
necessitates an evidentiary hearing,” or “that no material issue of fact exists and thus
that a hearing is unnecessary.” (Id. at p. 17.) “In reviewing whether a Board agent has
conducted a proper investigation, the Board generally has looked at whether or not the
Board agent abused his or her discretion.” (Id. at p. 13.)
Here, the Board agent determined that UTLA had provided sufficient proof of
support and informed the Charter Schools that they needed to either recognize UTLA
as the exclusive representative of certificated employees at the Charter Schools, or
dispute the appropriateness of the bargaining units. The Charter Schools argued that
9 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.

14
the entire Alliance Network of charter schools constituted a single employer, and that
the only appropriate bargaining unit consists of all certificated employees at all
Alliance Network schools. The Charter Schools raised no other issues challenging the
appropriateness of the petitioned-for units.
We find that the Board agent did not abuse her discretion by deciding the
relevant issues without a hearing. We have already considered the issue of whether
an Alliance Network-wide unit is the only appropriate unit configuration. Because this
is the only argument presented by the Charter Schools as the basis for doubting the
appropriateness of the bargaining units at issue, there is no material issue of fact and
a hearing is not warranted. (Children of Promise, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-402,
p. 17.)
Charter Schools argue that at a hearing we could receive evidence of its
reorganization, which, it contends, emphasizes that Alliance Network schools
comprise a single employer, and a Network-wide bargaining unit the only appropriate
unit. In support of this contention, the Charter Schools filed the declaration of Alliance
Chief of Staff Ali, detailing the reorganization. We disagree. First, we conduct our unit
appropriateness inquiry based on the facts present when the petitions were filed.
(Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, p. 27, fn. 27, citing Children of Promise,
supra, PERB Order No. Ad-402, p. 14.) Because the reorganization was not effective
until January 1, 2020, about eight months after the subject petitions were filed, Charter
Schools’ argument exceeds the scope of our inquiry. Second, in Alliance II, supra,
PERB Decision No. 2809, we considered the impact of the reorganization based on
the parties’ extensive stipulated record, in order to forestall the further uncertainty and

15
instability that could be created if Alliance Network schools were to file a unit
modification petition based on its reorganization. (Id. at p. 24-28.)
For the reasons set forth in Alliance I and affirmed in Alliance II, and discussed
further below, we need not hold another hearing in order to find that single school
units are appropriate here. On appeal, the Charter Schools argue that collateral
estoppel does not apply. The Charter Schools’ arguments regarding collateral
estoppel are not tenable given that the same parties already litigated the precise issue
at stake, and there are no material factual differences. In the alternative, however, we
have reviewed the parties’ submissions de novo and find the petitioned-for units are
appropriate based on the merits.
II. 	Single school bargaining units are appropriate
As noted above, our task when considering a petition for representation is to
determine whether the petitioned-for unit is appropriate based on the facts present
when the petition is filed. (Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, p. 27, fn. 27,
citing Children of Promise, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-402, p. 14.) The “petitioning
union is not required to seek to represent only the ‘most appropriate unit.’” (Id. at
p. 24, citing San Joaquin County Office of Education (2004) PERB Decision No. JR-
21, p. 4; Antioch Unified School District (1977) EERB Decision No. 37, p. 3.)10 When
performing this inquiry, we must weigh and balance the statutory criteria to achieve
consistency of application and the general objectives of EERA. (Alliance I, supra,
PERB Decision No. 2719, p. 24, citing Antioch Unified School District, supra, EERB
10 Prior to 1978, PERB was known as the Educational Employment Relations
Board or EERB.

16
Decision No. 37, p. 3; Marin Community College District (1978) PERB Decision
No. 55.) Among the statutory criteria, we must also take into account the purposes
and goals of the Charter School Act (CSA) when deciding cases involving charter
schools.11 (Alliance I, supra, p. 24, citing Orcutt Union Elementary School District
(2011) PERB Decision No. 2183, p. 5.)
When the appropriateness of a petitioned-for unit is at issue, EERA requires
PERB to decide the question based on “the community of interest between and among
the employees and their established practices including, among other things, the
extent to which such employees belong to the same employee organization, and the
effect of the size of the unit on the efficient operation of the school district.” (EERA,
§ 3545, subd. (a).) Section 3545 also “establishes a statutory presumption that all
certificated employees of a ‘public school employer’ should normally be included in a
single bargaining unit—the ‘Peralta presumption,’ bearing the designation of our
landmark decision in Peralta Community College District (1978) PERB Decision
No. 77 (Peralta).” (Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, pp. 24-25.) This
presumption may be rebutted based on the cumulative weight of three factors:
community of interest, established practices, and employer efficiency. (Id. at p. 25,
citing St. HOPE Public Schools (2018) PERB Decision No. Ad-472, pp. 4-5.)
When UTLA filed the petitions for representation, each school charter declared
that it was the exclusive public school employer of the employees at the charter school
for the purposes of EERA. (See Ed. Code, § 47611.5, subd. (b); EERA, § 3540.1,
11 The CSA is codified at Education Code section 47600 et seq.

17
subd. (k) [defining “public school employer” to include an individual “charter school
that has declared itself a public school employer pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
47611.5 of the Education Code”].) Therefore, we deem each school a public school
employer, and “to the extent it applies, the Peralta presumption largely favors school-
by-school units.” (Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, p. 25; see also id., p. 44,
fn. 35 [because each charter school individually represented to the State of California
that it was, by itself, a “public school employer,” the charter schools carried the burden
to overcome that representation].)
The Charter Schools argue that the Alliance Network schools constitute a single
employer, which renders individual school units inappropriate. However, we explained
in Alliance I why we have never applied the single employer doctrine to overrule a
petitioning union and declare that a single employer unit is the only appropriate unit
configuration:
“Doing so would afford more weight to employer efficiency
than to EERA’s fundamental policy that ‘[p]ublic school
employees shall have the right to form, join, and participate
in the activities of employee organizations of their own
choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of
employer-employee relations.’ (EERA, § 3543, subd. (a).)
The petition for recognition is the formal moment of genesis
in our collective bargaining process; we cannot give effect
to the right to representation and employee choice unless
we accept and process the petitions actually filed by
employee organizations. Therefore, our central inquiry is
whether UTLA requested appropriate units of employees of
the public school employers named in the petitions.”
(Id. at p. 28.)

18
This is especially the case with charter schools, where we must consider the
CSA’s unique policy goals (Ed. Code, § 47611.5, subd. (d)), such as “[encouraging]
the use of different and innovative teaching methods,” “[creating] new professional
opportunities for teachers, including the opportunity to be responsible for the learning
program at the school site,” and “[providing] vigorous competition within the public
school system to stimulate continual improvements in all public schools” (id., § 47601,
subds. (c), (d), and (g)). The wide variety of charter school structures in existence
require us to certify a variety of unit configurations to keep CSA’s goals of promoting
innovation and competition within the school system from trumping EERA’s goals of
promoting fair collective bargaining. (Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719,
p. 30.)
The record in Alliance I contains some facts that point to a community of
interest existing beyond the walls of individual Alliance Network schools, such as
Network-wide compensation and benefits, training, evaluation, and multiple policies
and procedures. However, the record shows noteworthy differences between the
Alliance Network and a school district, including employees’ lack of transfer
opportunities between schools, a lack of employee interchange except in unusual
circumstances, and the significant authority each school appears to have over its
day- to-day operations. As we noted in Alliance I, and briefly explain below, the
Alliance Network schools’ conflicting statements regarding certain policies and
procedures make it difficult to assess some community of interest facts. (Alliance I,
supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, p. 32.) In these circumstances, as in Alliance I, we
find that there is sufficient community of interest to support school-by-school units,

19
though record facts also exist that could support a Network-wide unit, had that been
requested. (Ibid., citing Lawson Mardon USA (2000) 332 NLRB 1282, 1286 [finding
employees at one location constitute an appropriate unit, even though many
community of interest factors would also support comprehensive unit proposed by the
employer, covering the full extent of a demonstrated single-employer enterprise].)
In Alliance I, Alliance Network schools argued that employer efficiency
supported the argument that only a Network-wide unit was appropriate. While
employer efficiency is relevant, it does not trump representational rights. (Alliance I,
supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, p. 33.) We further observed the potential “that
possible efficiency is undercut by the schools’ prior positions that they are
autonomous, as well as by the fact that we have no jurisdiction over the Alliance CMO,
the central entity in the alleged single-employer.” (Ibid.) For that reason, employer
efficiency—Charter Schools’ strongest argument—lacks the strength that it would
otherwise have in a traditional school context. We find the same analysis applies to
the subject petitioned-for units in the Alliance Network.
The third and final factor we consider is established practices. As we noted in
Alliance I, “the practice on which UTLA relied is established in the schools’
declarations that each is an independent employer, the schools’ individual charters,
and the prior cases before PERB in which the schools strenuously asserted their
autonomy.” (Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, p. 33.) The representations
made by schools in the Alliance Network were made prior to UTLA’s filing these
petitions, and UTLA justifiably relied on those representations when organizing at

20
Morgan McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine.12 For these reasons, we find that the
traditional factors make the petitioned-for bargaining units appropriate.
The inconsistencies that prevented Alliance Network schools from meeting its
burden to demonstrate that the petitioned-for units are inappropriate in Alliance I have
the same import here. While Alliance Network schools presented evidence in support
of the argument that only a Network-wide unit is appropriate in Alliance I, we observed
that the same facts were inconsistently presented in other PERB proceedings
involving UTLA. For instance, in Alliance I, the charter schools contended that
“operations of the Alliance Network are functionally integrated by both design and
practice,” contrary to Alliance Network longtime senior employee Lappin’s declarations
in prior cases that each school is designed to operate autonomously and without the
direct involvement of Alliance CMO, which provided only high-level administrative
support. (Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, pp. 35-36.) Similarly, in Alliance I
the Alliance Network schools claimed that the Alliance CMO exerts Network-wide
control over labor relations policies through its imposition of a “nonunion framework,”
uniform job descriptions, hours of work, performance standards, and discipline
policies. (Id. at p. 36.) These claims are undermined by prior declarations and
testimony that each Alliance Network school’s principal and board had authority to set
all significant employment policies, including hiring and firing decisions. (Ibid.)
12 Alliance argues that “UTLA could no longer have ‘reasonably relied’ on these
pre-petition statements because, by the time of filing in April 2019, UTLA had received
explicit notice from litigation in Alliance I.” We disagree. Filing petitions was the
culmination of a long period of gathering employee proof of support. Even if the
schools reversed their factual and legal representations sometime during that period,
this reversal did not require UTLA to turn on a dime and change its approach.

21
Moreover, in prior PERB cases the Alliance Network schools and the Alliance CMO
denied the existence of any single-employer entity and supported their denials with
sworn declarations representing that the charter schools were separate, autonomous
entities, and that it would therefore offend due process to add them as named
respondents in light of their denial of any single or joint employer status. (Id. at p. 38.)
When considering these inconsistencies in Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2719, we explained:
“The combined records from these cases raise substantial
questions regarding whether Alliance and its affiliated
schools had the facts right then, now, or some of each. But
we need not resolve these contradictions, because the
burden belongs to the Charter Schools to show not only
that they are part of a single employer construct, but also
that the only appropriate unit subsumes all certificated
personnel within the purported single employer. The self-
contradicting set of factual representations the Charter
Schools have made substantially impair them in making this
case. Moreover, we conclude that finding school-by-school
organizing to be categorically unavailable for Alliance
teachers would be a manifest injustice, particularly given
that Alliance schools have benefited from PERB rulings that
took into account the schools’ past factual representations
regarding the schools’ autonomy, and given that UTLA has
also relied on those representations.”
(Id. at p. 35.)
For these reasons, we find that the petitioned-for units at Morgan McKinzie and
Leichtman-Levine are appropriate. Because UTLA has provided proof of majority
support, we certify UTLA as the exclusive representative of the certificated units at
Morgan McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine.

22
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the entire record in this matter, the Public
Employment Relations Board hereby ORDERS that the Requests for Recognition filed
by the United Teachers of Los Angeles are GRANTED. It is hereby CERTIFIED that
the United Teachers of Los Angeles is and has been the exclusive representative of
employees of Alliance College-Ready Public Schools in the following units, retroactive
to April 9, 2019, the date of the filing of the petitions in PERB Case Nos. LA-RR-1292-
E and LA-RR-1293-E.
PERB Case No. LA-RR-1292-E (Alliance Morgan McKinzie High School)
INCLUDING: All certificated educational personnel including, but not limited to,
certificated teachers; psychologists; counselors; social workers; ELD specialists;
special education coordinators; education specialists; resource teachers; substitutes
employees employed by the employer; and teachers holding other equivalent
documents pursuant to Education Code section 47605, subdivision (l).
EXCLUDING: All other employees, including Management, Supervisory, and
Confidential employees as defined in EERA section 3540.1.
PERB Case No. LA-RR-1293-E (Alliance Leichtman-Levine Family Foundation
Environmental Science & Technology High School)
INCLUDING: All certificated educational personnel including, but not limited to,
certificated teachers; psychologists; counselors; social workers; ELD specialists;
special education coordinators; education specialists; resource teachers; substitutes
employees employed by the employer; and teachers holding other equivalent
documents pursuant to Education Code section 47605, subdivision (l).

23
EXCLUDING: All other employees, including Management, Supervisory, and
Confidential employees as defined in EERA section 3540.1.
Members Krantz and Paulson joined in this Decision.
Member Shiners’ dissent begins on page 24.

24
SHINERS, Member, dissenting: As explained in my dissent in Alliance Judy Ivie
Burton Technology Academy High School, et al. (2020) PERB Decision No. 2719
(Alliance I), as of May 2, 2018, when UTLA filed the representation petitions in those
cases, the Alliance-affiliated charter schools, including Alliance Morgan McKinzie High
School and Alliance Leichtman-Levine Family Foundation Environmental Science High
School (Charter Schools), constituted a single employer under California Virtual
Academies (2016) PERB Decision No. 2484, and thus under Peralta Community
College District (1978) PERB Decision No. 77, an Alliance-wide bargaining unit was
the appropriate unit for Alliance’s certificated employees. The Charter Schools have
presented no evidence of any significant changes in the structure of the Alliance
charter school network between May 2, 2018, and April 9, 2019, when UTLA filed the
representation petitions in these cases. Consequently, for the same reasons stated in
my dissent in Alliance I, the single-school bargaining units sought by UTLA are not
appropriate, and I therefore would dismiss the petitions in these cases.