Edison Schools, Inc. (PERB 1661E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
RAVENSWOOD TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Charging Party,
V.
EDISON SCHOOLS, INC.,
Respondent.
Case No. SF-CE-2233-E
PERB Decision No. 	1661
July
	15,
	2004
Appearances: California Teachers Association by Ramon E. Romero, Attorney, for
Ravenswood Teachers Association, CTA/NEA; Foley and Lardner
by
John H. Douglas,
Attorney, for Edison Schools, Inc.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Neima, Members.
DECISION
NEIMA, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB
or Board) on appeal by the Ravenswood Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (RTA)
of
a Board
agent's dismissal (attached)
of
its unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the Edison
Schools, Inc. violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) 1
by discriminating
against three teachers at the Edison Brentwood Academy (Edison Brentwood), a charter school
of
the Ravenswood City Elementary School District (District). The allegations in this case are
identical to those in unfair practice charge Case Nos. SF-CE-2218-E and SF-CE-2236-E, both
also filed by RTA. The only difference is that Case No. SF-CE-2218-E names the District as
the employer while Case No. SF-CE-2236-E names Edison Brentwood.
1EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540, et seq.

Recently, the Board issued Ravenswood City Elementary School District (2004) PERB
Decision No. 1660 (Ravenswood) resolving the two other cases. In Ravenswood, the Board
held that Edison Brentwood, and not the District, was the proper "public school employer" for
purposes of EERA in those cases. As the Board has already found that Edison Brentwood is
the proper employer, this charge must also be dismissed.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CE-2233-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chairman Duncan joined in this Decision.
Member Whitehead's concurrence begins on page 3.
2

WHITEHEAD, Member, concurring: Although I reach the same conclusion as the
majority, I write separately to caution against adopting a general rule for interpreting
Education Code section 47611.5(£).
In Long Beach Community College District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1564 the Public
Employment Relations Board found at p. 10:
[I]t is a fundamental rule
of
statutory construction that the intent
of
the Legislature should be examined in order to effectuate the
purpose
of
the law. 	(Moyer (v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
(1973) 10 Cal. 3d 222,230 (110 Cal. Rptr. 144] (Moyer)], at p.
230.) In determining intent, it is important to examine the
language
of
the statute and to give effect to each word. (Moyer at
p. 230.) However, it is also a fundamental rule
of
statutory
construction that a statute must be construed in context, 'keeping
in mind the nature and obvious purpose
of
the statute where they
appear.' 	(Moyer at p. 230.) "[T]he various parts
of
a statutory
enactment must be harmonized by considering the particular
clause or section in the context
of
the statutory framework as a
whole." (Moyer at p. 230.) [Emphasis added.]
Along these lines, I look to the pertinent provisions
of
the Migden amendment to the
Charter Schools Act (Stats. 1999, Ch. 828) for guidance. 	Section 47611.5(£)
of
the Education
Code provides:
By March 31, 2000, all existing charter schools must declare
whether or not they shall be deemed a public school employer in
accordance with subdivision (b), and such declaration shall not be
materially inconsistent with the charter. [Emphasis added.]
Education Code section 4 7611. 5(b) requires that:
A charter school charter shall contain a declaration regarding
whether or not the charter school shall be deemed the exclusive
public school employer
of
the employees at the charter school for
the purposes
of
Section 3540.1
of
the Government Code.
	If
the
charter school is not so deemed a public school employer, the
school district where the charter is located shall be deemed the
public school employer for the purposes of Chapter 10. 7
(commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of the
Government Code. 	[Emphasis added.]
3

Educational Employment Relations Act (BERA) section 3540.l(k) provides:
'Public school employer' or 'employer' means the
governing board
of
a school district, a school
district, a county board
of
education, a county
superintendent
of
schools, or a charter school that
has declared itself a public school employer
pursuant to subdivision (b)
of
Section 47611.5
of
the Education Code. [Emphasis added.]
This legislation does not describe a process by which the charter school "declares" the
identity
of
public school employer but does state for each existing charter school that the
declaration must be "in accordance with subdivision
(b
)" and "not materially inconsistent with
the charter."1
It is this Board's responsibility to determine the identity
of
the public school employer
for purposes
of
compliance with BERA. With the recent proliferation
of
charter schools, this
task has been made more complicated. How a charter school complies with the requirements
discussed above may vary significantly from one charter school to the next. Given that each
charter school has its own charter, it would be impossible to write a general rule that would
govern all occasions. I believe that each case must be judged on its own merits to determine
whether the "declaration" was made in a manner that satisfies the Legislature's requirements.
1This obligation also appears to apply to charter schools that previously made a
declaration and now wish to change it.
4

STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
103118thStreet
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8387
Fax: (916) 327-6377
December 18, 2001
Ramon E. Romero,
Staff
Attorney
California Teachers Association
PO
Box 921
Burlingame, CA 94011-0921
Re: 	Ravenswood Teachers Association,
CTNNEA
v. Edison Schools Inc.
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CE-2233-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Romero:
GRAY
DA
VIS, Governor
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on October 14, 2001. The Ravenswood Teachers Association,
CTNNEA
alleges that the Edison Schools Inc.(Edison) violated the Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA)1
by discriminating against three teachers at Edison Brentwood
Academy.
The same allegations raised in this charge were raised in unfair practice charge SF-CE-2218
which named the Ravenswood City School District (District) as the employer and in charge
number SF-CE-2236 which named Edison Brentwood Academy (Academy), a charter school,
as the employer.
I indicated to you in my
attached letter dated December 7, 2001, that the above-referenced
charge did not state a prima facie case. You were advised that,
if
there were any factual
inaccuracies or additional facts which would correct the deficiencies explained in that letter,
you should amend the charge. You were further advised that, unless you amended the charge
to state a prima facie case or withdrew it prior to December 20, 2001, the charge would be
dismissed.
On December 14, 2001, you filed a First Amended Charge in which you provide in Paragraph
18, a response to my inquiries as to the status
of
Edison Schools Inc. as either a "joint
employer" with Edison Brentwood Academy or, as a ''single employer" that would meet the
definition
of
"public school employer" as expressed in BERA 3540. l(k).
In the amended charge you provide the following as reasons for finding Edison as joint or
single employer with Edison Brentwood Academy:
1 BERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the BERA and
the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

SF-CE-2233-E
December 18, 2001
Page 2
(1) Both the Principal and Director
of
Brentwood Academy were employees
of
Edison
and took their direction from Edison managers, thus common management;
(2) The operations
of
Edison Schools Inc. and Edison Brentwood Academy are
interrelated in that Edison Brentwood Academy is but one
of
many similarly
structured charter schools managed by Edison across California and the USA;
(3) Edison and Edison Brentwood Academy have common ownership
of
their business
operations;
(4) Edison and Edison Brentwood Academy have common and/or centralized control
of
labor relations as partially evidenced by the fact that the same law firm
represents both;
(5) Even without common ownership, Edison and Edison Brentwood Academy are
joint employers because
of
Edison effectively and actively participates in the
control
of
Edison Brentwood Academy.
For the reasons expressed in my December 7, 2001 letter, and because you have failed to
provide any additional facts to support your theory
of
joint employer or single employer
the charge is being dismissed. The legal conclusions you draw from the fact that Edison
employed the Principal and the Director
of
Edison Brentwood Academy are insufficient to
establish that it is the "public school employer"
of
the employees in question.
As you indicated in your amended charge, RTA learned for the first time on or about August
20, 2001, that pursuant to Education Code 47611.5, Edison Brentwood Academy had declared
itself the public school employer for purposes ofEERA. The fact that Edison Brentwood
Academy subcontracted with Edison Schools Inc. for management services does not establish
common ownership or common mission or common purpose between the two.
As I pointed out in my warning letter, PERB has held that a public school employer and a
company providing transportation to students
of
that employer did not become a single
employer for purposes ofEERA. 	See United Public Employees v. Public Employment
Relations Board (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1119, 1128, 262 Cal Rptr.158. The charge fails to
establish that Edison is a public school employer and therefore fails to establish that PERB has
jurisdiction.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,2 you may obtain a review
of
this dismissal of the charge by
filing an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service
of
this
dismissal. (Regulation 32635(a).) Any document filed with the Board must contain the case
name and number, and the original and five (5) copies
of
all documents must be provided to
the Board.
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

SF-CE-2233-E
December 18, 2001
Page 3
A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close of business (5 p.m.)
on the last day set for filing or when mailed by certified or Express United States mail, as
shown on the postal receipt or postmark, or delivered to a common carrier promising overnight
delivery, as shown on the carrier's receipt, not later than the last day set for filing.
(Regulations 32135(a) and 32130.)
A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the
close of business on the last day for filing together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
which meets the requirements of 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.
(Regulations 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
FAX: (916) 327-7960
If you file a timely appeal of the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may file with the
Board an original and five copies of a statement in opposition within twenty (20) calendar days
following the date of service of the appeal. (Regulation 32635(b).)
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding, and a "proof of service" must accompany each copy of a document served upon a
party or filed with the Board itself. (See Regulation 32140 for the required contents and a
sample form.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered
or deposited in the first-class mail, postage paid and properly addressed. A document filed by
facsimile transmission may be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to
the proceeding. (Regulation 32135(c).)
Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time, in which to file a document 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. (Regulation 32132.)

SF-CE-2233-E
December 18, 2001
Page 4
Final Date
If
no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
ROBERT THOMPSON
General Counsel
y~	B
R7gsmith
Labor Relations Specialist
.
Attachment
cc: 	Lynn Goodfellow
RCS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
I 031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8387
Fax: (916) 327-6377
December 7, 2001
Ramon E. Romero, Staff Attorney
California Teachers Association
PO Box 921
Burlingame, CA 94011-0921
Re: 	Ravenswood Teachers Association, CTA/NEA v. Edison Schools Inc.
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CE-2233-E
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Romero:
GRAY
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on October 14, 2001. The Ravenswood Teachers Association,
CTA/NEA alleges that the Edison Schools Inc.(Edison) violated the Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA)1 by discriminating against three teachers at Edison Brentwood
Academy.
The same allegations raised in this charge were raised in unfair practice charge SF-CE-2218
which named the Ravenswood City School District (District) as the employer and in charge
number SF-CE-2236 which named Edison Brentwood Academy (Academy), a charter school,
as the employer.
Through this charge you seek to have PERB find that Edison Schools Inc. is the employer of
the three teachers or acts as a joint employer or alter-ego with the District/Academy. The only
information you provided as to the nature of the joint employer status between Edison and the
District/Academy is that at the time of the alleged violations, the Principal, Martha Navarette
was employed as a supervisory employee of Edison, and that Edison continues to employ the
Principal at the Academy and also provide other management services to the District and
Academy.
BERA section 3540.l(k) defines a "public school employer" as:
(k) "Public school employer" or "employer" means the governing
board of a school district, a school district, a county board of
education, a county superintendent of schools, or a charter school
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.
Governor

SF-CE-2233-E
December 7, 2001
Page 2
(
that has declared itself a public school employer pursuant to
subdivision (b) of Section 47 611.5 of the Education Code.
Edison Schools Inc. is a private corporation and does not fall within this definition.
Because Edison does not meet the definition of "public school employer" in EERA, and you
have not argued that the District/Academy and Edison have become a single employer, this
case is being analyzed as if Edison were a joint-employer with the District/Academy.
However, you have not provided any facts to support your argument that Edison acts as a joint
employer with the District/Academy. 	'
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has defined a joint-employer in National
Transportation Service, Inc. 240 NLRB 565, 100 LLRM 1263 (1979) as one in which one
employer accedes control over terms and conditions of employment to another so that it fails to
have sufficient ability to bargain with a labor organization. An employer that retains sufficient
control over terms and conditions of employment can not claim joint-employer status simply
because there is an "intimate connection" between the purposes of an exempt employer and
the services provided by a nonexempt employer. 	Here, the Academy provides a public
education to students of the District and Edison provides management services to the
Academy. The District/Academy still appears to maintain control over the terms and
conditions of employment, e.g. wages, hours of work and benefits. If you have facts to
demonstrate the contrary, please provide them.
PERB has held that a school district and the company providing bus services to that district
were not a single employer for purposes of EERA. See United Public Employees v. Public
Employment Relations Board (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1119, 1128, 262 Cal Rptr.158.
The management services provided by Edison without further facts, similarly does not
demonstrate that it a joint-employer falling under PERB's jurisdiction. 	You need to provide
additional facts to support the allegation that Edison rather than the Academy/District
exercises control over terms and conditions of employment. Without the additional
information, the charge falls short in establishing that Edison acts as a joint-employer with the
District/Academy.
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case. If there
are any factual inaccuracies in this letter or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained above, please amend the charge. The amended charge should be prepared on a
standard PERB unfair practice charge form, clearly labeled First Amended Charge, contain all
the facts and allegations you wish to make, and be signed under penalty of perjury by the
charging party. The amended charge must have the case number written on the top right hand
comer of the charge form. 	The amended charge must be served on the respondent's
representative and the original proof of service must be filed with PERB. If I do not receive an

SF-CE-2233-E
December 7, 2001
Page 3
(
amended charge or withdrawal from you before December 20, 2001, I shall dismiss your
charge.
	If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
~,Lu
Rog,-Smith
Labor Relations Specialist