County of Calaveras (PERB 2252M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SEIU LOCAL 1021,
Charging Party, 	Case No. SA-CE-596-M
V. 	PERB Decision No. 2252-M
COUNTY OF CALAVERAS, 	April 18, 2012
Respondent.
CALAVERAS COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
Joined Party/Intervener.
Appearances: Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld by Matthew J. Gauger, Attorney, for SEIU
Local 1021; Liebert, Cassidy & Whitmore by Arlin B. Kachalia, Attorney, for County of
Calaveras; Goyette & Associates by Eric R. Azevedo, Attorney, for Calaveras County Public
Safety Employees Association.
Before Martinez, Chair; Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin, Members.
DECISION
DOWDIN CALVILLO, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by SEIU Local 1021 (SEIU) to a decision of a
PERB administrative law judge (ALJ) (attached) dismissing an unfair practice charge. The
complaint issued by PERB's Office of the General Counsel alleged that the County of
Calaveras (County) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)' by approving a mixed
unit of peace officer and non-peace officer classifications requested in a severance petition
filed by the Calaveras County Public Safety Employees Association (CCPSEA) and by
unilaterally selecting a neutral third party representative in violation of its own local rules
The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references are to the Government Code.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SEIU LOCAL 1021,
Charging Party,
V.
COUNTY OF CALAVERAS,
Respondent.
CALAVERAS COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
Joined Party/Intervener.
Case No. SA-CE-596-M
PERB Decision No. 2252-M
April 18, 2012
Appearances: Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld by Matthew
J.
Gauger, Attorney, for SEIU
Local 1021; Liebert, Cassidy & Whitmore by Arlin B. Kachalia, Attorney, for County
of
Calaveras; Goyette & Associates by Eric
R.
Azevedo, Attorney, for Calaveras County Public
Safety Employees Association.
Before Martinez, Chair; Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin, Members.
DECISION
DOWD IN CALVILLO, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by SEIU Local 1021 (SEIU) to a decision
of
a
PERB administrative law judge (ALJ) (attached) dismissing an unfair practice charge. The
complaint issued by PERB' s Office
of
the General Counsel alleged that the County
of
Calaveras (County) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) 1 by approving a mixed
unit
of
peace officer and non-peace officer classifications requested in a severance petition
filed by the Calaveras County Public Safety Employees Association (CCPSEA) 	by
unilaterally selecting a neutral third party representative in violation of its own local rules
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references are to the Government Code.

adopted pursuant to MMBA section 3507. The ALJ determined that the County did not apply
its local rules in a manner inconsistent with the MMBA and its past practice and dismissed the
complaint and underlying charge.
The Board has reviewed the proposed decision and the record in light of SEIU's
exceptions and supporting brief, the County's and CCPSEA's responses, and the relevant law.
Based on this review, the Board adopts the ALJ's proposed decision as its own, subject to the
following discussion.
DISCUSSION
SEIU excepts to the ALJ's determinations that the County did not violate the MMBA
when it (1) approved a severance petition filed by CCPSEA for a bargaining unit containing
both limited term peace officers and non-peace officers; and (2) employed retired California
State Mediation and Conciliation Service (CSMCS) mediator Shirley Campbell (Campbell) to
supervise the election over SEIU's objection.
Mixed Unit
MMBA section 3507(a), authorizes a local public agency to "adopt reasonable rules
and regulations after consultation in good faith with representatives of a recognized employee
organization or organizations for the administration of employer-employee relations." A local
agency may not, however, adopt rules and regulations that would frustrate the declared policies
and purposes of the MMBA. (Huntington Beach Police Officers' Assn. v. City of Huntington
Beach (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 492, 502 (Huntington Beach).) Where a local rule adopted by a
local agency conflicts with the MMBA and its fundamental purposes
rule will be denied. (City and County of San Francisco v. Stationery Engineers Local 39
(2009) PERB Decision No. 2041-M, citing International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v.
City of Gridley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 191, 196-206 (City of Gridley).) Thus, the scope of authority
2
adopted pursuant to MMBA section 3507. The ALJ determined that the County did not apply
its local rules in a manner inconsistent with the MMBA and its past practice and dismissed the
complaint and underlying charge.
The Board has reviewed the proposed decision and the record in light
of
SEIU' s
exceptions and supporting brief, the County's and CCPSEA's responses, and the relevant law.
Based on this review, the Board adopts the ALJ's proposed decision as its own, subject to the
following discussion.
DISCUSSION
SEIU excepts to the ALJ' s determinations that the County did not violate the MMBA
when it (1) approved a severance petition filed by CCPSEA for a bargaining unit containing
both limited term peace officers and non-peace officers; and (2) employed retired California
State Mediation and Conciliation Service (CSMCS) mediator Shirley Campbell (Campbell) to
supervise the election over SEIU's objection.
Mixed Unit
MMBA section 3507(a), authorizes a local public agency to "adopt reasonable rules
and regulations after consultation in good faith with representatives
of
a recognized employee
organization or organizations for the administration of employer-employee relations." A local
agency may not, however, adopt rules and regulations that would frustrate the declared policies
and purposes
of
the MMBA. (Huntington Beach Police Officers' Assn.
v.
City
of
Huntington
Beach (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 492, 502 (Huntington Beach).) Where a local rule adopted by a
local agency conflicts with 	MMBA and its fundamental purposes,	, enforcement of such a
rule will be denied. 	(City and County
of
San Francisco
v.
Stationery Engineers Local 3 9
(2009) PERB Decision No. 2041-M, citing International Brotherhood
of
Electrical Workers
v.
City
of
Gridley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 191, 196-206 (City
of
Gridley).) Thus, the scope of authority
2

to supplement provisions of the statute must be "consistent with, and effectuate the declared
purposes of, the statute as a whole." (City of Gridley at p. 202.)
Section 9 of the County's employer-employee relations ordinance (EERO) provides, in
relevant part:
Peace officers and limited term peace officers must be
represented in separate units composed solely of such peace
officers. These units shall not be represented by an organization
that, directly or indirectly, is subordinate to any other employee
organization which includes non-peace officers.
SEIU contends that the County violated the MMBA by approving CCPSEA's severance
petition that created a bargaining unit containing both limited term peace officers and non-
peace officers, in violation of section 9 of the EERO. SEIU acknowledges that the
Miscellaneous unit has been a mixed unit of peace officers and non-peace officers since at least
1998. SEIU contends, however, that while the mixed unit represented by SEIU was
permissible under MMBA section 3507.1(b) notwithstanding the language of EERO section 9
prohibiting such units, the County violated the MMBA when it approved the petitioned-for
mixed unit requested by CCPSEA.
MMBA section 3508(a) allows peace officer employees to select representation in
peace-officer only bargaining units, and provides:
a) The governing body of a public agency may, in accordance
with reasonable standards, designate positions or classes of
positions which have duties consisting primarily of the
enforcement of state laws or local ordinances, and may by
resolution or ordinance adopted after a public hearing, limit or
prohibit the right of employees in these positions or classes of
positions to form, join, or participate in employee organizations
where it is in th
governing body may not prohibit the right of its employees who
are full-time "peace officers." as that term is defined in
Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2
of the Penal Code, to join or participate in employee
organizations which are composed solely of those peace officers,
which concern themselves solely and exclusively with the wages,
3
to supplement provisions
of
the statute must be "consistent with, and effectuate the declared
purposes of, the statute as a whole." (City
of
Gridley at
p.
202.)
Section 9
of
the County's employer-employee relations ordinance (EERO) provides, in
relevant part:
Peace officers and limited term peace officers must be
represented in separate units composed solely
of
such peace
officers. These units shall not be represented
by
an organization
that, directly or indirectly, is subordinate to any other employee
organization which includes non-peace officers.
SEIU contends that the County violated the MMBA by approving CCPSEA's severance
petition that created a bargaining unit containing both limited term peace officers and non-
peace officers, in violation
of
section 9
of
the EERO. SEIU acknowledges that the
Miscellaneous unit has been a mixed unit
of
peace officers and non-peace officers since at least
1998. SEIU contends, however, that while the mixed unit represented by SEIU was
permissible under MMBA section 3507
.1
(b) notwithstanding the language
of
EERO section 9
prohibiting such units, the County violated the MMBA when it approved the petitioned-for
mixed unit requested by CCPSEA.
MMBA section 3508(a) allows peace officer employees to select representation in
peace-officer only bargaining units, and provides:
(a) The governing body
of
a public agency may, in accordance
with reasonable standards, designate positions or classes
of
positions which have duties consisting primarily
of
the
enforcement
of
state laws or local ordinances, and may by
resolution or ordinance adopted after a public hearing, limit or
prohibit the right of employees in these positions or classes of
positions to form, join, or participate 	employee organizations
where it is in the public interest to do so. However, the	e public interest to do so. However. the
governing body may not prohibit the right of its employees who
are full-time "peace officers," as that term is defined in
Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2
of the Penal Code, to ioin or participate in employee
organizations which are composed solely of those peace officers,
which concern themselves solely and exclusively with the wages,
3

hours, working conditions, welfare programs, and advancement
of the academic and vocational training in furtherance of the
police profession, and which are not subordinate to any other
organization.
(Emphasis added.)
Thus, while MMBA section 3508(a) grants peace officers the affirmative right to join
or participate in peace officer-only units, nothing in that section requires peace officers to
exercise this right nor prohibits them from being in mixed units if they so choose. Moreover,
MMBA section 3508(d) prohibits a public agency from restricting the right of employees to
join and participate in the activities of employee organizations, and provides: "The right of
employees to form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations shall not be
restricted by a public agency on any grounds other than those set forth in this section." Thus,
EERO section 9, which limits the ability of peace officer employees to select representation in
a mixed unit with non-peace officer employees, is inconsistent with MMBA section 3508(a)
and (d).
Ordinarily, the party attacking a local rule bears the burden of proof to establish that
the rule is unreasonable. (Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975)
48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338.) In this case, however, no party has asserted directly that EERO
section 9 constitutes an unreasonable local rule under the MMBA. Instead, unlike in the usual
case, SEIU seeks to enforce the letter of the local rule, while the County asserts essentially that
the manner in which it has applied its rule is reasonable and consistent with the MMBA. Given
that EERO section 9 conflicts directly with the provisions of MMBA section 3508 granting
peace officers the right to select representation in a mixed unit with non-peace officer
employees, we conclude that enforcement of the express provisions of that rule would frustrate
the declared policies and purposes of the MMBA and conflict with its fundamental purposes.
(Huntington Beach; City of Gridley.) Accordingly, we conclude that EERO section 9 is an
hours, working conditions, welfare programs, and advancement
of
the academic and vocational training in furtherance
of
the
police profession, and which are not subordinate to any other
organization.
4
(Emphasis added.)
Thus, while MMBA section 3508(a) grants peace officers the affirmative right to join
or participate in peace officer-only units, nothing in that section requires peace officers to
exercise this right nor prohibits them from being in mixed units
if
they so choose. Moreover,
MMBA section 3508(d) prohibits a public agency from restricting the right
of
employees to
join and participate in the activities
of
employee organizations, and provides: "The right
of
employees to form, join and participate in the activities
of
employee organizations shall not be
restricted by a public agency on any grounds other than those set forth in this section." Thus,
EERO section 9, which limits the ability
of
peace officer employees to select representation in
a mixed unit with non-peace officer employees, is inconsistent with MMBA section 3508(a)
and (d).
Ordinarily, the party attacking a local rule bears the burden
of
proof to establish that
the rule is unreasonable. (Organization
of
Deputy Sheriffs
v.
County
of
San Mateo (1975)
48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338.) In this case, however, no party has asserted directly that EERO
section 9 constitutes an unreasonable local rule under the MMBA. Instead, unlike in the usual
case, SEIU seeks to enforce the letter
of
the local rule, while the County asserts essentially that
the manner in which it has applied its rule is reasonable and consistent with the MMBA. 	Given
that EERO section 9 conflicts directly with the provisions of MMBA section 3508 granting
peace officers the right to select representation in a mixed 	with non-peace officer
employees, we conclude that enforcement of the express provisions of that rule would frustrate
the declared policies and purposes of the MMBA and conflict with its fundamental purposes.
(Huntington Beach; City
of
Gridley.) Accordingly, we conclude that EERO section 9 is an

unreasonable local rule that cannot be enforced to preclude the mixed unit requested by
CCPSEA.
SEIU also contends that the County violated MMBA section 3507.1(a) and (b) because
it failed to follow its own ordinance. Section 3507.1 provides, in relevant part:
(a) Unit determinations and representation elections shall be
determined and processed in accordance with rules adopted by a
public agency in accordance with this chapter. In a
representation election, a majority of the votes cast by the
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit shall be required.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) and rules adopted by a
public agency pursuant to Section 3507, a bargaining unit in
effect as of the effective date of this section shall continue in
effect unless changed under the rules adopted by a public agency
pursuant to Section 3507.
According to SEIU, the mixed unit of peace officer and non-peace officer employees
represented by SEIU since 2005 was permissible under Section 3507.1(b) because that same
mixed unit, represented first by Operating Engineers Local 3 and then by the Calaveras County
Employee Association (CCEA), existed prior to the effective date of the statute, January 1,
2000. SEIU contends, however, that, under the rules adopted by the County pursuant to
Section 3507.1(a), the mixed unit requested by CCPSEA is no longer permissible because
section 9 of the EERO categorically prohibits such units.
We disagree. Section 3507.1(a) required the County to follow its local rules in
processing the severance petition. Those rules include EERO section 9, which on its face
appears to prohibit a mixed unit of peace officer and non-peace officer employees and, as
stated above, is an unreasonable local rule. Section 3507.1(b) allows a preexisting bargaining
unit in effect as of the effective date of Section 3507.1 unless changed under rules adopted by
he record refers to decertification petitions filed by SEIU Locals 535 and 4988.
While not entirely clear, it appears that charging party SEIU Local 1021 is the successor to
those entities for purposes of representing the Miscellaneous bargaining unit at issue in this
case.
5
unreasonable local rule that cannot be enforced to preclude the mixed unit requested by
CCPSEA.
SEIU also contends that the County violated MMBA section 3507.l(a) and (b) because
it failed to follow its own ordinance. Section 3507
.1
provides, in relevant part:
(a) Unit determinations and representation elections shall be
determined and processed in accordance with rules adopted by a
public agency in accordance with this chapter. In a
representation election, a majority
of
the votes cast by the
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit shall be required.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) and rules adopted by a
public agency pursuant to Section 3507, a bargaining unit in
effect as
of
the effective date
of
this section shall continue in
effect unless changed under the rules adopted by a public agency
pursuant to Section 3507.
According to SEIU, the mixed unit
of
peace officer and non-peace officer employees
represented by SEIU since 2005 2 was permissible under Section 3507.l(b) because that same
mixed unit, represented first by Operating Engineers Local 3 and then by the Calaveras County
Employee Association (CCEA), existed prior to the effective date
of
the statute, January 1,
2000. SEIU contends, however, that, under the rules adopted by the County pursuant to
Section 3507.l(a), the mixed unit requested by CCPSEA is no longer permissible because
section 9
of
the EERO categorically prohibits such units.
We disagree. 	Section 3507.l(a) required the County to follow its local rules in
processing the severance petition. Those rules include 	section
9,
which on its face
appears to prohibit a mixed unit of peace officer and non-peace officer employees and, as
stated above, is an unreasonable local 	Section 35 07
.1
(b) allows a preexisting bargaining
unit in effect as of the effective date of Section 3507.1 unless changed under rules adopted by
5
T The record refers to decertification petitions filed by SEIU Locals 535 and 4988.
While not entirely clear, it appears that charging party SEIU Local 1021 is the successor to
those entities for purposes of representing the Miscellaneous bargaining unit at issue in this
case.

the public agency pursuant to Section 3507. In this case, the bargaining unit representative
changed at least twice since the effective date of Section 3507.1: first in 2003 when CCEA
became the exclusive representative for the Miscellaneous unit, and then in 2005 when SEIU
filed a decertification petition and won a decertification election ousting CCEA. In both
instances, the County permitted the mixed composition of the unit to continue when the
representation changed, notwithstanding the language of EERO section 9, and SEIU certainly
had no objection to the mixed unit in 2005. Thus, it is clear that the County has had a
longstanding practice of permitting a mixed unit of peace officer and non-peace officer
employees, notwithstanding the language contained in EERO section 9, and that it allowed the
bargaining unit representative to change pursuant to that practice.
SEIU further contends that, although EERO section 9 did not prohibit the SEIU mixed
unit, the unit requested by CCPSEA violates section 9 because CCPSEA sought to sever a
portion of the pre-existing unit and create a new unit, rather than continue to represent the
entire unit. In essence, SEIU argues that Section 3507.1(b) has the effect of "grandfathering"
in a bargaining unit that fails to comply with an agency's local rules in cases involving
decertification of the bargaining representative under rules adopted by the agency, but not in
cases involving modification of the unit through severance. SEIU has provided no authority,
and we have found none, for the proposition that Section 3507.1(b) applies to cases involving a
change 	argaining representative, but not to severance petitions processed under the local
agency's rules.
We also reject SEIU's argument that the Board's decision in County of Placer (2004)
PERB Decision No. 1630-M compels a different result. In that case, the Board held that the
local agency was entitled to enforce a provision in a memorandum of understanding that
arguably had not been enforced previously. (See also Marysville Joint Unified School District
6
the public agency pursuant to Section 3507. In this case, the bargaining unit representative
changed at least twice since the effective date of Section 3507.1: first in 2003 when CCEA
became the exclusive representative for the Miscellaneous unit, and then in 2005 when SEIU
filed a decertification petition and won a decertification election ousting CCEA. In both
instances, the County permitted the mixed composition of the unit to continue when the
representation changed, notwithstanding the language of EERO section 9, and SEIU certainly
had no objection to the mixed unit in 2005. 	Thus, it is clear that the County has had a
longstanding practice of permitting a mixed unit of peace officer and non-peace officer
employees, notwithstanding the language contained in EERO section 9, and that it allowed the
bargaining unit representative to change pursuant to that practice.
SEIU further contends that, although EERO section 9 did not prohibit the SEIU mixed
unit, the unit requested by CCPSEA violates section 9 because CCPSEA sought to sever a
portion of the pre-existing unit and create a new unit, rather than continue to represent the
entire unit. In essence, SEIU argues that Section 3507.1 (b) has the effect of "grandfathering"
in a bargaining unit that fails to comply with an agency's local rules in cases involving
decertification of the bargaining representative under rules adopted by the agency, but not in
cases involving modification of the unit through severance. SEIU has provided no authority,
and we have found none, for the proposition that Section 3507.l(b) applies to cases involving a
change 	bargaining representative, but not to severance petitions processed under the local	in b
agency's rules.
We also reject SEIU's argument that the Board's decision 	County of Placer (2004)
PERB Decision No. 1630-M compels a different result. In that case, the Board held that the
local agency was entitled to enforce a provision in a memorandum of understanding that
arguably had not been enforced previously. (See also Marysville Joint Unified School District
6

(1983) PERB Decision No. 314 ["The mere fact that an employer has not chosen to enforce its
contractual rights in the past does not mean that, ipso facto, it is forever precluded from doing
so."].) In this case, the County does not seek to enforce its local rule in a manner contrary to
its past practice; instead, it has construed section 9 to permit a mixed unit of peace officers and
non-peace officers, just as it has in the past.
For all of the reasons set forth above and in the ALJ's proposed decision, we conclude
that the County did not violate the MMBA when it approved the mixed unit requested by
CCPSEA.
Election Supervisor
SEIU contends that the County violated EERO section 7 of its local rules when it
selected retired mediator Campbell from CSMCS to supervise the election. Section 7 provides:
The Employee Relations Officer shall follow the procedures of
Government Code section 3507.1(c) for placing contested matters
under Section 6 in care of a neutral third party to conduct secret
ballot elections, if necessary.
The ALJ determined that County EERO section 7 did not require the use of MMBA
section 3507.1(c) procedures in this case, finding that it has not been necessary for the County
to invoke MMBA section 3507.1(c) because of its history in selecting CSMCS to supervise
elections under the EERO. We agree. EERO section 7 provides for the use of a neutral third
party to supervise contested elections. While section 7 also directs the employment relations
officer to utilize the procedures set forth in MMBA section 3507.1(c) "if necessary," the
parties have not interpreted this provision to require mutual selection of the neutral third party.
Instead, the parties' past practice has been to go directly to CSMCS to obtain the neutral third
party. Thus, it was not necessary to invoke Section 3507.1(c), given this past practice. In this
case, CSMCS declined to supervise the election after SEIU objected, leading the County to
select Campbell, the same individual who had performed this function previously while
7
(1983) PERB Decision No. 314 ["The mere fact that an employer has not chosen to enforce its
contractual rights in the past does not mean that, ipso facto, it is forever precluded from doing
so."].) In this case, the County does not seek to enforce its local rule in a manner contrary to
its past practice; instead, it has construed section 9 to permit a mixed unit
of
peace officers and
non-peace officers, just as it has in the past.
For all
of
the reasons set forth above and in the ALJ's proposed decision, we conclude
that the County did not violate the MMBA when it approved the mixed unit requested by
CCPSEA.
Election Supervisor
SEIU contends that the County violated EERO section 7
of
its local rules when it
selected retired mediator Campbell from CSMCS to supervise the election. Section 7 provides:
The Employee Relations Officer shall follow the procedures
of
Government Code section 3507
.1
(c) for placing contested matters
under Section 6 in care
of
a neutral third party to conduct secret
ballot elections,
if
necessary.
The ALJ determined that County EERO section 7 did not require the use
of MMBA
section 3507
.1
(c) procedures in this case, finding that it has not been necessary for the County
to invoke MMBA section 3507.l(c) because of its history in selecting CSMCS to supervise
elections under the EERO. We agree. EERO section 7 provides for the use
of
a neutral third
party to supervise contested elections. While section 7 also directs the employment relations
officer to utilize the procedures set forth in MMBA section 3507.l(c)
"if
necessary," the
parties have not interpreted this provision to require mutual selection of the neutral third party.
Instead, the parties' past practice has been to go 	to CSMCS to obtain the neutral third
party. Thus, it was not necessary to invoke Section 3507.l(c), given this past practice. 	In this
case, CSMCS declined to supervise the election after SEIU objected, leading the County to
select Campbell, the same individual who had performed this function previously while
7

employed by CSMCS. SEIU does not contend that Campbell did not perform her duties in a
neutral manner, or that her participation tainted the outcome of the election in any way.
Therefore, we find no basis to overturn the ALJ's determination that the County did not violate
section 7 when it selected Campbell as the neutral third party to supervise the election.
ORDER
The complaint and underlying unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CE-596-M are
hereby DISMISSED.
Chair Martinez and Member Huguenin joined in this Decision.
88
employed by CSMCS. SEIU does not contend that Campbell did not perform her duties in a
neutral manner, or that her participation tainted the outcome of the election in any way.
Therefore, we find no basis to overturn the ALJ' s determination that the County did not violate
section 7 when it selected Campbell as the neutral third party to supervise the election.
ORDER
The complaint and underlying unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CE-596-M are
hereby DISMISSED.
Chair Martinez and Member Huguenin joined in this Decision.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL 1021,
UNFAIR PRACTICE
Charging Party, 	CASE NO. SA-CE-596-M
V . 	PROPOSED DECISION
(5/25/2011)
COUNTY OF CALAVERAS,
Respondent.
CALAVERAS COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
Joined Party/Intervener.
Appearances: Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld by Matthew J. Gauger, Attorney, for Service
Employees International Union Local 1021; Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by Arlin B. Kachalia,
Attorney, for County of Calaveras; Goyette & Associates by Eric R. Azevedo, Attorney, for
Calaveras County Public Safety Employees Association.
Before Christine A. Bologna, Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case alleges that a public agency violated two local rules by approving a severance
petition and selecting a neutral to conduct a representation election. The employer denies
committing any unfair practices.
On April 20, 2009, Charging Party Service Employees International Union Local 1021
(SEIU or Union) filed an unfair practice charge (charge) against the County of Calaveras
(County); on September 24, SEIU filed an amended charge. On February 22, 2010, the Office
of the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) issued an
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL 1021,
Charging Party,
V.
COUNTY OF CALAVERAS,
Respondent.
CALAVERAS COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
Joined Party/Intervener.
UNFAIR PRACTICE
CASE NO. SA-CE-596-M
PROPOSED DECISION
(5/25/2011)
Appearances: 	Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld by Matthew J. Gauger, Attorney, for Service
Employees International Union Local 1021; Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by Arlin B. Kachalia,
Attorney, for County of Calaveras; Goyette & Associates by Eric R. Azevedo, Attorney, for
Calaveras County Public Safety Employees Association.
Before Christine A. Bologna, Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case alleges that a public agency violated two local rules by approving a severance
petition and selecting a neutral to conduct a representation election. The employer denies
committing any unfair practices.
On April 20, 2009, Charging Party Service Employees International Union Local 1021
(SEIU or Union) filed an unfair practice charge (charge) against the County of Calaveras
(County); on September 24, SEIU filed an amended charge. On February 22, 2010, the Office
of the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) issued an

unfair practice complaint (complaint)' alleging that the County acted inconsistently with two
local rules/sections of its Employer-Employee Relations Ordinance (EERO) by: (1) approving
a petition to sever a bargaining unit of Public Safety employees, which included peace officers
and non-peace officers, from the General Miscellaneous Unit represented by the Union on
March 24, 2009, and (2) twice replacing the third party neutral representative/election
supervisor for the election in the severance petition without discussions with SEIU in April and
May 2009, in violation of Government Code sections 3507.1(a) and 3509(b) of the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) and PERB Regulation 32603(g).
On March 18, 2010, Respondent County answered the complaint, admitting three
allegations, denying all substantive allegations and any violations of law, and asserting
affirmative defenses.
On March 22, 2010, the Calaveras County Public Safety Employees Association
(CCPSEA or Association) filed an application for intervention/joinder as a real party in
interest. On April 13, the County filed its non-opposition to and support of the application.
On April 19, SEIU filed its opposition to the application.
An informal settlement conference was conducted on April 28, 2010, but the dispute
was not resolved.
On February 22, 2010, the PERB General Counsel/Board agent issued a partial
dismissal, dismissing five additional claims in the amended charge for failure to state a prima
facie case. SEIU did not appeal the partial dismissal to the Board.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Government Code. The
MMBA is codified at section 3500 et seq. PERB regulations are codified at California Code of
Regulations, title 8, section 31001 et seq.
22
unfair practice complaint (complaint) 1 alleging that the County acted inconsistently with two
local rules/sections of its Employer-Employee Relations Ordinance (EERO) by: (1) approving
a petition to sever a bargaining unit of Public Safety employees, which included peace officers
and non-peace officers, from the General Miscellaneous Unit represented by the Union on
March 24, 2009, and (2) twice replacing the third party neutral representative/election
supervisor for the election in the severance petition without discussions with SEIU in April and
May 2009, in violation of Government Code sections 3507.l(a) and 3509(b) of the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) and PERB Regulation 32603(g).2
On March 18, 2010, Respondent County answered the complaint, admitting three
allegations, denying all substantive allegations and any violations of law, and asserting
affirmative defenses.
On March 22, 2010, the Calaveras County Public Safety Employees Association
(CCPSEA or Association) filed an application for intervention/joinder as a real party in
interest. On April 13, the County filed its non-opposition to and support of the application.
On April 19, SEIU filed its opposition to the application.
An informal settlement conference was conducted on April 28, 2010, but the dispute
was not resolved.
1 On February 22, 2010, the PERB General Counsel/Board agent issued a partial
dismissal, dismissing five additional claims in the amended charge for failure to state a prirna
facie case. 	SEIU did not appeal the partial dismissal to the Board.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Government Code. 	The
MMBA is codified at section 3500 et seq. PERB regulations are codified at California Code of
Regulations, title 8, section 31001 et seq.

On October 27, 2010, the County filed a motion to continue the hearing. The motion
was granted during an October 28 telephone conference call in which all parties participated.
Also on October 28, the application of CCPSEA for intervention/joinder was granted because
the Association and its severance petition were specifically alleged in the complaint.
On November 2, 2010, the County amended its answer, admitting two allegations and
adding affirmative defenses.
On December 2, 2010, formal hearing was held in Sacramento. On March 15, 2011,
the case was submitted for decision following receipt of post-hearing briefs.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Jurisdiction
The County admits that it is a public agency within the meaning of MMBA
section 3501(c) and PERB Regulation 32016(a). The County further admits that SEIU is the
exclusive representative of an appropriate unit of employees within the meaning of PERB
Regulation 32016(b).
EERO
The County EERO was adopted in 1976; it was amended in August 2001 and on
July 31, 2002. Article II, sections 4 through 12 govern representation proceedings. To be
formally acknowledged as an exclusive representative, an employee organization files a
petition setting forth certain information and documentation (section 4). The County
Employee Relations Officer responds in writing to the petition (section 5). Other employee
organizations may file competing/challenging petitions within a 30-day open period
(section 6).
3
On October 27, 2010, the County filed a motion to continue the hearing. The motion
was granted during an October
28
telephone conference call in which all parties participated.
Also on October 28, the application
of
CCPSEA for intervention/joinder was granted because
the Association and its severance petition were specifically alleged in the complaint.
3
On November 2, 2010, the County amended its answer, admitting two allegations and
adding affirmative defenses.
On December 2, 2010, formal hearing was held in Sacramento. On March 15, 2011,
the case was submitted for decision following receipt
of
post-hearing briefs.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Jurisdiction
The County admits that it is a public agency within the meaning
of
MMBA
section 350l(c) and PERB Regulation 32016(a). The County further admits that SEIU is the
exclusive representative
of
an appropriate unit
of
employees within the meaning
of
PERB
Regulation 32016(b).
EERO
The County EERO was adopted in 1976; it was amended in August 2001 and on
July 31, 2002. Article II, sections 4 through
12
govern representation proceedings. To be
formally acknowledged as an exclusive representative, an employee organization files a
petition setting forth certain information and documentation (section 4). The County
Employee Relations Officer responds in writing to the petition (section 5). Other employee
organizations may file competing/challenging petitions within a 30-day open period
(section 6).

Section 7 provides:
The Employee Relations Officer shall follow the procedures of
Government Code section 3507.1(c) for placing contested
matters under Section 6 in care of a neutral third party to
conduct secret ballot elections, if necessary.
Decertification petitions may be filed in March of any year following the first full year
of recognition, or during the 30-day window period between 90 and 120 days before the
termination of the existing memorandum of understanding (MOU) of less than three years
duration. A secret ballot election is conducted pursuant to EERO section 7 (section 8).
MMBA section 3507.1(c) provides:
A public agency shall grant exclusive or majority recognition to
an employee organization based on a signed petition,
authorization cards, or union membership cards showing that a
majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit
desire the representation, unless another labor organization has
previously been lawfully recognized as exclusive or majority
representative of all or part of the same unit. Exclusive or
majority representation shall be determined by a neutral third
party selected by the public agency and the employee
organization who shall review the signed petition, authorization
cards, or union membership cards to verify the exclusive or
majority status of the employee organization. In the event the
public agency and the employee organization cannot agree on a
neutral third party, the Division of Conciliation of the Department
of Industrial Relations shall be the neutral third party and shall
verify the exclusive or majority status of the employee
organization. In the event that the neutral third party determines,
based on a signed petition, authorization cards, or union
membership cards, that a second labor organization has the
support of at least 30 percent of the employees in the unit in
which recognition is sought, the neutral third party shall order an
election to establish which labor organization, if any, has
majority status.
4
Section 7 provides:
The Employee Relations Officer shall follow the procedures
of
Government	
31	
Code section
3507.l(ci
	for placing contested
matters under Section 6 in care
of
a neutral third party to
conduct secret ballot elections,
if
necessary.
Decertification petitions may be filed in March
of
any year following the first full year
of
recognition, or during the 30-day window period between 90 and 120 days before the
termination
of
the existing memorandum
of
understanding (MOU)
of
less than three years
duration. A secret ballot election is conducted pursuant to EERO section 7 (section 8).
3 MMBA section 3507.l(c) provides:
A public agency shall grant exclusive or majority recognition to
an employee organization based on a signed petition,
authorization cards, or union membership cards showing that a
majority
of
the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit
desire the representation, unless another labor organization has
previously been lawfully recognized as exclusive or majority
representative
of
all or part
of
the same unit. Exclusive or
majority representation shall be determined by a neutral third
party selected by the public agency and the employee
organization who shall review the signed petition, authorization
cards, or union membership cards to verify the exclusive or
majority status of the employee organization. In the event the
public agency and the employee organization cannot agree on a
neutral third party, the Division
of
Conciliation
of
the Department
of
Industrial Relations shall be the neutral third party and shall
verify the exclusive or majority status of the employee
organization. In the event that the neutral third party determines,
based on a signed petition, authorization cards, or union
membership cards, that a second labor organization has the
support of at least 30 percent of the employees in the unit in
which recognition is sought, the neutral third party shall order an
election to establish which labor organization, if any, has
majority status.
4

Section 9 provides, in relevant part:
Peace officers and limited term peace officers must be
represented in separate units composed solely of such
peace officers. These units shall not be represented by an
organization that, directly or indirectly, is subordinate to
any other employee organization which includes
non-peace officers.
EERO section 10 establishes a unit modification procedure in which petitions may be
filed during the section 8 window period. Section 1 1 sets forth a severance procedure; the
timing, form, and processing of these petitions are the same as unit modification petitions. An
employee organization may appeal the Employee Relations Officer's unit determination
decision or decision on a representation petition by requesting mediation by the California
State Mediation and Conciliation Service (CSMCS), and/or seeking review by the County
Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors may refer the dispute to arbitration. The
decision of the Board of Supervisors is final and binding (section 12).
Miscellaneous Unit
In 1972, the County Board of Supervisors approved a General Miscellaneous Unit
(Miscellaneous or Unit 7). International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 3 (IUOE) was
the exclusive representative for the bargaining unit when Francine Osborn (Osborn), Director
of Risk Management and Human Resources/Employee Relations Officer, began County
*EERO section 9 also sets forth policy and standards for determining appropriate units.
These are the effect of the proposed unit on efficient operations of the County, and effective
representation of employees based on community of interest considerations, which include
similarity of work performed, qualifications required and general working conditions; history
of representation; consistency with County organizational patterns; effect of different impasse
resolution procedures; fragmentation of job classifications (class) and unit proliferation; and
effect on the class structure. An appropriate unit is the broadest feasible grouping of positions
sharing an identifiable community of interest.
5
Section 9 provides, in relevant part4 :
Peace officers and limited term peace officers must be
represented in separate units composed solely
of
such
peace officers. These units shall not be represented by an
organization that, directly or indirectly, is subordinate to
any other employee organization which includes
non-peace officers.
EERO section
10
establishes a unit modification procedure in which petitions may be
filed during the section 8 window period. Section
11
sets forth a severance procedure; the
timing, form, and processing
of
these petitions are the same as unit modification petitions. An
employee organization may appeal the Employee Relations Officer's unit determination
decision or decision on a representation petition by requesting mediation by the California
State Mediation and Conciliation Service (CSMCS), and/or seeking review by the County
Board
of
Supervisors. The Board
of
Supervisors may refer the dispute to arbitration. The
decision
of
the Board
of
Supervisors is final and binding (section 12).
Miscellaneous Unit
In 1972, the County Board
of
Supervisors approved a General Miscellaneous Unit
(Miscellaneous or Unit 7). International Union
of
Operating Engineers, Local 3 (IUOE) was
the exclusive representative for the bargaining unit when Francine Osborn (Osborn), Director
of
Risk Management and Human Resources/Employee Relations Officer, began County
4 EERO section 9 also sets forth policy and standards for determining appropriate units.
These are the effect of the proposed unit on efficient operations of the County, and effective
representation of employees based on community of interest considerations, which include
similarity of work performed, qualifications required and general working conditions; history
of representation; consistency with County organizational patterns; effect of different impasse
resolution procedures; fragmentation of job classifications (class) and unit proliferation; and
effect on the class structure. An appropriate unit is the broadest feasible grouping of positions
sharing an identifiable community of interest.
5

employment in 1998." In 2003, the Calaveras County Employee Association (CCEA) became
the exclusive representative for Unit 7.
On March 30, 2005, ' SEIU Local 535 filed a petition to decertify CCEA and be
recognized as exclusive representative for the Miscellaneous unit. On March 31, CSMCS
Mediator Shirley Campbell (Campbell) certified that the 30 percent proof of support required
by the County EERO had been met. On June 28, SEIU Local 4988 filed a
recognition/decertification petition in Unit 7. On June 30, the Union sought certification as
exclusive representative based on sufficient proof of support. On August 15, CSMCS
Mediator Campbell forwarded election notices for posting at County worksites. After a secret
ballot election on September 6 and 8, CSMCS certified election results that Miscellaneous unit
members voted to change their exclusive representative from CCEA to SEIU. On October 3,
the County Board of Supervisors formally recognized SEIU as the exclusive representative for
the Miscellaneous unit.
In 1998, there were three bargaining units of County employees: Miscellaneous;
Deputy Sheriffs, represented by the Deputy Sheriffs Association; and Sheriffs' Management,
represented by Goyette and Associates.
Osborn did not remember if CCEA decertified IUOE, but they "must have." Osborn
has participated in three County representation petitions: IUOE when she started with the
County; SEIU in 2005, infra; and CCPSEA in 2007, infra.
CCEA President Jeannie Middleton (Middleton) was on leave when the decertification
petitions were filed. When she returned to work, SEIU had replaced CCEA as exclusive
representative in the unit.
Unit 7 included the limited term peace officer job classes of Deputy Probation
Officer I, II, and III, and the non-peace officer classes of Correctional Corporal, Correctional
Officer/Matron, and Correctional Sergeant.
employment in 1998.5 In 2003, the Calaveras County Employee Association (CCEA) became
the exclusive representative for Unit 7.6
On March 30, 2005,7 SEIU Local 535 filed a petition to decertify CCEA and be
recognized as exclusive representative for the Miscellaneous unit. 8 On March 31, CSMCS
Mediator Shirley Campbell (Campbell) certified that the 30 percent proof of support required
by the County EERO had been met. 	On June 28, SEIU Local 4988 filed a
recognition/decertification petition in Unit 7. On June 30, the Union sought certification as
exclusive representative based on sufficient proof of support. On August 15, CSMCS
Mediator Campbell forwarded election notices for posting at County worksites. After a secret
ballot election on September 6 and 8, CSMCS certified election results that Miscellaneous unit
members voted to change their exclusive representative from CCEA to SEIU. On October 3,
the County Board of Supervisors formally recognized SEIU as the exclusive representative for
the Miscellaneous unit.
5 In 1998, there were three bargaining units of County employees: Miscellaneous;
Deputy Sheriffs, represented by the Deputy Sheriffs Association; and Sheriffs' Management,
represented by Goyette and Associates.
6 Osborn did not remember if CCEA decertified IUOE, but they "must have." Osborn
has participated in three County representation petitions: IUOE when she started with the
County; SEIU in 2005, infra; and CCPSEA in 2007, infra.
7 CCEA President Jeannie Middleton (Middleton) was on leave when the decertification
petitions were filed. 	When she returned to work, SEIU had replaced CCEA as exclusive
representative in the unit.
8 Unit 7 included the limited term peace officer job classes of Deputy Probation
Officer I, II, and III, and the non-peace officer classes of Correctional Corporal, Correctional
Officer/Matron, and Correctional Sergeant.
6

CCPSEA Petition
On August 15, 2007, the "newly formed" CCPSEA filed a recognition/decertification
petition for 24 job classes of 60 employees" in the Miscellaneous unit with Employee
Relations Officer Osborn. On August 29, CCPSEA requested to change the petition to a unit
modification petition, and submitted a community of interest analysis under County EERO
Article II, section 9 standards.
On September 10, 2007, a meeting on the proposed unit modification/severance petition
was convened by County Employee Relations Officer Osborn. CSMCS Mediator Campbell
attended, as did CCPSEA representatives. Although invited, SEIU representatives did not
attend, but expressed the Union's opposition to the petition verbally to Osborn."
On November 13, 2007, Employee Relations Officer Osborn approved the unit
modification/severance petition for a new bargaining unit containing 24 job classes of 72
employees based on an identifiable community of interest and effective service to the County
and the public. Osborn notified Gabler and CCPSEA Labor Relations Representative Luce
Beltran (Beltran)" of appeal rights under EERO section 12.
he parties submitted a joint stipulation of facts for hearing, and joint exhibits. One
Union and three County witnesses testified. County and SEIU exhibits were received in
evidence.
" The job classes included the limited term peace officer Deputy Probation Officers I,
II, and III, and the non-peace officer Correctional Corporals, Correctional Officers/Matrons,
and Correctional Sergeants. The petition stated that Middleton was the CCPSEA President.
A September 7, 2007 letter from SEIU counsel informed Osborn that the Union
would meet with her and the mediator on September 10 "concerning the time, place, and
manner of the pending agency shop petition/election," but would "not discuss any pending
decertification or unit modification petitions." The agency fee election was held on October 3.
CSMCS Mediator Campbell certified the secret ballot election results approving agency fees
for the Miscellaneous unit. On October 30, SEIU Field Representative David Gabler (Gabler)
requested implementation of the agency shop deductions.
12 Beltran is employed by Goyette and Associates.
7
CCPSEA Petition9
On August 15, 2007, the "newly formed" CCPSEA filed a recognition/decertification
petition for 24 job classes of 60 employees 10 in the Miscellaneous unit with Employee
Relations Officer Osborn. On August 29, CCPSEA requested to change the petition to a unit
modification petition, and submitted a community of interest analysis under County EERO
Article II, section 9 standards.
On September I 0, 2007, a meeting on the proposed unit modification/severance petition
was convened by County Employee Relations Officer Osborn. 	CSMCS Mediator Campbell
attended, as did CCPSEA representatives. Although invited, SEIU representatives did not
attend, but expressed the Union's opposition to the petition verbally to Osborn.11
On November 13, 2007, Employee Relations Officer Osborn approved the unit
modification/severance petition for a new bargaining unit containing 24 job classes of 72
employees based on an identifiable community of interest and effective service to the County
and the public. Osborn notified Gabler and CCPSEA Labor Relations Representative Luce
Beltran (Beltran) 12 of appeal rights under EERO section 12.
TThe parties submitted a joint stipulation of facts for hearing, and joint exhibits. 	One
Union and three County witnesses testified. County and SEIU exhibits were received in
evidence.
10 The job classes included the limited term peace officer Deputy Probation Officers I,
II, and III, and the non-peace officer Correctional Corporals, Correctional Officers/Matrons,
and Correctional Sergeants. The petition stated that Middleton was the CCPSEA President.
11 A September 7, 2007 letter from SEIU counsel informed Osborn that the Union
would meet with her and the mediator on September 10 "concerning the time, place, and
manner of the pending agency shop petition/election," but would "not discuss any pending
decertification or unit modification petitions." The agency fee election was held on October 3.
CSMCS Mediator Campbell certified the secret ballot election results approving agency fees
for the Miscellaneous unit. 	On October 30, SEIU Field Representative David Gabler (Gabler)
requested implementation of the agency shop deductions.
12 Beltran is employed by Goyette and Associates.
7

On November 16, 2007, SEIU representative Gabler appealed Employee Relations
Officer Osborn's decision granting the CCPSEA petition and requested mediation by CSMCS
Mediator Campbell." Campbell conducted a mediation with all parties on January 17, 2008.
A second mediation was scheduled on January 30, but SEIU cancelled that morning. In
February, March, and April 2008, attempts were made to schedule subsequent mediations. On
April 9, SEIU Worksite Organizer Mike Fouch (Fouch) wrote to Campbell requesting the
status of mediation; this letter was copied to Beltran for CCPSEA, and Osborn for the County.
On April 14, Osborn informed Fouch and Beltran that the parties were at impasse, mediation
was terminated, and her decision on the unit modification/severance petition stood unless
appealed. On April 15, Campbell advised Fouch, Beltran, and Osborn that her last contact
with the parties resulted in abandonment of mediation.
On May 7, 2008, SEIU counsel appealed the grant of the unit modification/severance
petition to the County Board of Supervisors. On May 30, the County deemed the appeal
untimely and would not process it. SEIU and the County exchanged correspondence over the
timeliness of the appeal in June and July.
On September 10, 2008, CSMCS notified all parties that an election would be
conducted on the unit modification/severance petition. A meeting was held on September 12
to discuss election rules, and the election was scheduled for October 9.
On September 12, 2008, SEIU filed a charge alleging, in relevant part, that the County
failed to process its appeal of the decision granting the petition in violation of EERO
section 12; an amended charge was filed on September 30 (PERB Case No. SA-CE-552-M).
The October 9 election was not conducted because the charge was pending. On October 15,
Gabler's letter "rejected the incorrect characterization" of the September 10, 2007
meeting, contending that its' purpose was to discuss the pending agency shop election.
8
On November 16, 2007, SEIU representative Gabler appealed Employee Relations
Officer Osborn's decision granting the CCPSEA petition and requested mediation by CSMCS
Mediator Campbell. 13 Campbell conducted a mediation with all parties on January 17, 2008.
A second mediation was scheduled on January 30, but SEIU cancelled that morning. In
February, March, and April 2008, attempts were made to schedule subsequent mediations. 	On
April 9, SEIU Worksite Organizer Mike Fouch (Fouch) wrote to Campbell requesting the
status of mediation; this letter was copied to Beltran for CCPSEA, and Osborn for the County.
On April 14, Osborn informed Fouch and Beltran that the parties were at impasse, mediation
was terminated, and her decision on the unit modification/severance petition stood unless
appealed. 	On April 15, Campbell advised Fouch, Beltran, and Osborn that her last contact
with the parties resulted in abandonment of mediation.
On May 7, 2008, SEIU counsel appealed the grant of the unit modification/severance
petition to the County Board of Supervisors. On May 30, the County deemed the appeal
untimely and would not process it. 	SEIU and the County exchanged correspondence over the
timeliness of the appeal in June and July.
On September 10, 2008, CSMCS notified all parties that an election would be
conducted on the unit modification/severance petition. A meeting was held on September 12
to discuss election rules, and the election was scheduled for October 9.
On September 12, 2008, SEIU filed a charge alleging, in relevant part, that the County
failed to process its appeal of the decision granting the petition in violation of EERO
section 12; an amended charge was filed on September 30 (PERB Case No. SA~CE-552-M).
The October 9 election was not conducted because the charge was pending. On October 15,
13 Gabler' s letter "rejected the incorrect characterization" of the September 10, 2007
meeting, contending that its' purpose was to discuss the pending agency shop election.
8

the PERB General Counsel/Board agent issued a complaint." At the November 7 informal
settlement conference, the parties agreed to a resolution allowing SEIU to re-file its appeal
with the County Board of Supervisors within two weeks. The Union did not re-file the appeal.
At the January 30, 2009 formal hearing, the parties settled the dispute; SEIU would file its
appeal within two weeks, and withdrew the underlying charge on the record." The Union
thereafter requested an additional week to file the appeal which the County granted.
On March 17, 2009, SEIU counsel submitted public comment and objections to the unit
modification/severance petition to the County Board of Supervisors. On March 24, the Board
of Supervisors denied the Union's appeal of the Employee Relations Officer's approval of the
petition, and recommended a vote.
In March and April 2009, Employee Relations Officer Osborn contacted CSMCS to
schedule an election and serve as election supervisor. SEIU counsel communicated to CSMCS
Chief Paul Roose (Roose) that there was a dispute over the new unit because it contained peace
officers and non-peace officers; the County did not participate in these discussions. On
April 14, Osborn asked Roose/CSMCS to supervise the election in the severance petition.
Roose told Osborn that CSMCS would not supervise the election. On April 14 or 15, Assistant
County Counsel David Sirias (Sirias) complained to CSMCS Chief Deputy Director David
Rowan, Roose's supervisor, about CSMCS' refusal to supervise the election.
On April 20, 2009, CSMCS Chief Roose sent an electronic mail message (e-mail) to
Employee Relations Officer Osborn, SEIU counsel, and CCPSEA representative Beltran.
" he General Counsel/Board agent also issued a partial dismissal, dismissing the
allegations that the County violated the EERO/its local rules by approving an inappropriate
unit, and by including peace officers and non-peace officers in that unit, for failure to state a
prima facie case. SEIU did not appeal the partial dismissal to the Board.
15 Counsel for CCPSEA appeared at the hearing as a third party Intervener. SEIU did
not object to Intervener status by the Association in PERB Case No. SA-CE-552-M.
the PERB General Counsel/Board agent issued a complaint. 14 At the November 7 informal
settlement conference, the parties agreed to a resolution allowing SEIU to re-file its appeal
with the County Board of Supervisors within two weeks. The Union did not re-file the appeal.
At the January 30, 2009 formal hearing, the parties settled the dispute; SEIU would file its
appeal within two weeks, and withdrew the underlying charge on the record. 15 The Union
thereafter requested an additional week to file the appeal which the County granted.
On March 17, 2009, SEIU counsel submitted public comment and objections to the unit
modification/severance petition to the County Board of Supervisors. On March 24, the Board
of Supervisors denied the Union's appeal of the Employee Relations Officer's approval of the
petition, and recommended a vote.
In March and April 2009, Employee Relations Officer Osborn contacted CSMCS to
schedule an election and serve as election supervisor. 	SEIU counsel communicated to CSMCS
Chief Paul Roose (Roose) that there was a dispute over the new unit because it contained peace
officers and non-peace officers; the County did not participate in these discussions. 	On
April 14, Osborn asked Roose/CSMCS to supervise the election in the severance petition.
Roose told Osborn that CSMCS would not supervise the election. On April 14 or 15, Assistant
County Counsel David Sirias (Sirias) complained to CSMCS Chief Deputy Director David
Rowan, Roose's supervisor, about CSMCS' refusal to supervise the election.
On April 20, 2009, CSMCS Chief Roose sent an electronic mail message (e-mail) to
Employee Relations Officer Osborn, SEIU counsel, and CCPSEA representative Beltran.
T The General Counsel/Board agent also issued a partial dismissal, dismissing the
allegations that the County violated the EERO/its local rules by approving an inappropriate
unit, and by including peace officers and non-peace officers in that unit, for failure to state a
prima facie case. 	SEIU did not appeal the partial dismissal to the Board.
15 Counsel for CCPSEA appeared at the hearing as a third party Intervener. 	SEIU did
not object to Intervener status by the Association in PERB Case No. SA-CE-552-M.
9

Roose advised the parties that no charge had been filed with PERB over the appropriateness of
the unit, and he wanted to schedule the election. Roose added that if a charge was filed, he
would consult with the parties to determine if it would interfere with reaching agreement on
the election. Roose informed the parties that another neutral could conduct the election.
Roose attached a sample election agreement, which included provisions for the parties'
approvals of bargaining unit composition and eligible voters. An hour later, SEIU counsel sent
an e-mail to the parties and Roose, advising that the Union's charge would be filed with PERB
that day or the next morning; SEIU further claimed that the employer's conduct "will certainly
interfere with any hope of a stipulated election." The Union filed this charge on April 20.
CSMCS then refused to supervise the election.
Employee Relations Officer Osborn thereafter contacted the Tuolumne County Human
Resources Department, which agreed to conduct the election. On April 24, 2009, Osborn
notified SEIU representative Fouch and CCPSEA representative Beltran that an impartial
representative from the Tuolumne County Human Resources Department would supervise the
May 7 secret ballot election in San Andreas; the notice also included election information (i.e.,
eligible voters, ballot language, observers, majority vote of valid ballots cast).
On the morning of April 28, 2009, Employee Relations Officer Osborn received an
e-mail from the Tuolumne County Human Resources Department identifying the employee
who would assist in conducting the May 7 election. Also on April 28, SEIU counsel sent a
letter and facsimile transmission (fax) to Tuolumne County Counsel Gregory Oliver (Oliver),
attaching Osborn's April 24 election notice, and urging Tuolumne County to "refrain from
thrusting itself into the vortex of Calaveras County's inability to follow its own Unit
Modification rules;" the letter further stated that CSMCS had refused to conduct the election
because the Union had filed an "unfair labor practice charge" with PERB over its dispute with
10
Roose advised the parties that no charge had been filed with PERB over the appropriateness of
the unit, and he wanted to schedule the election. Roose added that if a charge was filed, he
would consult with the parties to determine if it would interfere with reaching agreement on
the election. Roose informed the parties that another neutral could conduct the election.
Roose attached a sample election agreement, which included provisions for the parties'
approvals of bargaining unit composition and eligible voters. An hour later, SEID counsel sent
an e-mail to the parties and Roose, advising that the Union's charge would be filed with PERB
that day or the next morning; SEIU further claimed that the employer's conduct "will certainly
interfere with any hope of a stipulated election." The Union filed this charge on April 20.
CSMCS then refused to supervise the election.
Employee Relations Officer Osborn thereafter contacted the Tuolumne County Human
Resources Department, which agreed to conduct the election. On April 24, 2009, Osborn
notified SEID representative Fouch and CCPSEA representative Beltran that an impartial
representative from the Tuolumne County Human Resources Department would supervise the
May 7 secret ballot election in San Andreas; the notice also included election information (i.e.,
eligible voters, ballot language, observers, majority vote of valid ballots cast).
On the morning of April 28, 2009, Employee Relations Officer Osborn received an
e-mail from the Tuolumne County Human Resources Department identifying the employee
who would assist in conducting the May 7 election. Also on April 28, SEID counsel sent a
letter and facsimile transmission (fax) to Tuolumne County Counsel Gregory Oliver (Oliver),
attaching Osborn's April 24 election notice, and urging Tuolumne County to "refrain from
thrusting itself into the vortex of Calaveras County's inability to follow its own Unit
Modification rules;" the letter further stated that CSMCS had refused to conduct the election
because the Union had filed an "unfair labor practice charge" with PERB over its dispute with
10

the County. The County Counsel's Office received the April 28 letter on April 30, and faxed it
to the County Human Resources Office that morning.
Also on April 28, 2009, Employee Relations Officer Osborn e-mailed a list of eligible
voters in the unit modification/severance election to SEIU representative Fouch and CCPSEA
representative Beltran. On the morning of April 30, Fouch responded, "Since Tuolumne will
not be conducting the election, who will?" Osborn replied immediately to Fouch that a
Tuolumne County Human Resources representative would be the election supervisor.
On the morning of April 30, 2009, a Tuolumne County Human Resources Department
representative informed Employee Relations Officer Osborn that Tuolumne County would not
supervise the May 7 election. That day, Osborn spoke with Tuolumne County Counsel Oliver
who agreed to honor the commitment to assist in the election, but only as an observer.
On May 1, 2009, Employee Relations Officer Osborn requested a representative from
the Tuolumne County Human Resources Department to observe the election; Tuolumne
County agreed to send one. Also on May 1, Osborn received contact information for
Campbell, who had retired from CSMCS, from Tuolumne County and CSMCS Chief Roose.
Campbell subsequently agreed to serve as the election officer.
On May 4, 2009, SEIU counsel sent a letter and fax to Assistant County Counsel Sirias
requesting confirmation that the May 7 election would not be held because Tuolumne County
was not participating. If the election would be conducted, the Union requested the name and
contact information for the election supervisor. Sirias then contacted Tuolumne County
Counsel Oliver to learn why the Tuolumne County Human Resources Department would not
supervise the election.
From April 29 through May 4, 2009, Employee Relations Officer Osborn, SEIU
President James Turley (Turley), and SEIU representative Fouch exchanged e-mails on use of
11
the County. The County Counsel's Office received the April 28 letter on April 30, and faxed it
to the County Human Resources Office that morning.
11
Also on April 28, 2009, Employee Relations Officer Osborn e-mailed a list of eligible
voters in the unit modification/severance election to SEIU representative Fouch and CCPSEA
representative Beltran. On the morning of April 30, Fouch responded, "Since Tuolumne will
not be conducting the election, who will?" Osborn replied immediately to Fouch that a
Tuolumne County Human Resources representative would be the election supervisor.
On the morning of April 30, 2009, a Tuolumne County Human Resources Department
representative informed Employee Relations Officer Osborn that Tuolumne County would not
supervise the May 7 election. That day, Osborn spoke with Tuolumne County Counsel Oliver
who agreed to honor the commitment to assist in the election, but only as an observer.
On May 1, 2009, Employee Relations Officer Osborn requested a representative from
the Tuolumne County Human Resources Department to observe the election; Tuolumne
County agreed to send one. Also on May 1, Osborn received contact information for
Campbell, who had retired from CSMCS, from Tuolumne County and CSMCS Chief Roose.
Campbell subsequently agreed to serve as the election officer.
On May 4, 2009, SEIU counsel sent a letter and fax to Assistant County Counsel Sirias
requesting confirmation that the May 7 election would not be held because Tuolumne County
was not participating. If the election would be conducted, the Union requested the name and
contact information for the election supervisor. Sirias then contacted Tuolumne County
Counsel Oliver to learn why the Tuolumne County Human Resources Department would not
supervise the election.
From April 29 through May 4, 2009, Employee Relations Officer Osborn, SEIU
President James Turley (Turley), and SEIU representative Fouch exchanged e-mails on use of

County e-mail and posting of election notices, which confirmed that the May 7 election would
not be cancelled.
On May 6, 2009, Employee Relations Officer Osborn advised SEIU representative
Fouch that Campbell would supervise the May 7 election. That day, Fouch asked Campbell
for her e-mail address so he could provide it to SEIU counsel. On May 7, Fouch came to the
election site with an envelope from SEIU Field Director Ulysses Madison (Madison), his
supervisor, but Campbell would not accept it. " The Union sent a package to Campbell's home
by certified mail; Campbell refused to accept it, and returned it. On May 7, Luisa Blue, a
SEIU employee in Oakland, called Campbell at home.
Campbell supervised the May 7, 2009 election and certified the results, which were
signed by SEIU President Turley and a County representative. Of 65 eligible voters, 42
employees voted. Thirty-seven voted for CCPSEA as exclusive representative. Five
employees voted for SEIU as exclusive representative.
On May 8, 2009, SEIU representative Fouch prepared a letter to Employee Relations
Officer Osborn objecting to any change in the deduction of membership dues and agency fees
in the "disputed" unit, and demanding that any changed deductions be placed in an escrow
account. The letter further stated that it would "constitute embezzlement" if SEIU dues or fees
were transferred to any other location. Osborn did not receive the letter, and had not seen it
before the hearing.
16 On May 7, Fouch prepared a letter to Campbell objecting to the election because she
was not a neutral party. Fouch testified that Madison told him he had given the letter to
Campbell, but Fouch did not know when the letter was delivered. Campbell did not mention
the letter to Osborn.
12	12
County e-mail and posting of election notices, which confirmed that the May 7 election would
not be cancelled.
On May 6, 2009, Employee Relations Officer Osborn advised SEIU representative
Fouch that Campbell would supervise the May 7 election. That day, Fouch asked Campbell
for her e-mail address so he could provide it to SEIU counsel. On May 7, Fouch came to the
election site with an envelope from SEIU Field Director Ulysses Madison (Madison), his
supervisor, but Campbell would not accept it. 16 The Union sent a package to Campbell's home
by certified mail; Campbell refused to accept it, and returned it. On May 7, Luisa Blue, a
SEIU employee in Oakland, called Campbell at home.
Campbell supervised the May 7, 2009 election and certified the results, which were
signed by SEIU President Turley and a County representative. 	Of 65 eligible voters, 42
employees voted. Thirty-seven voted for CCPSEA as exclusive representative. Five
employees voted for SEIU as exclusive representative.
On May 8, 2009, SEIU representative Fouch prepared a letter to Employee Relations
Officer Osborn objecting to any change in the deduction of membership dues and agency fees
in the "disputed" unit, and demanding that any changed deductions be placed in an escrow
account. The letter further stated that it would "constitute embezzlement" if SEIU dues or fees
were transferred to any other location. 	Osborn did not receive the letter, and had not seen it
before the hearing.
11 On May 7, Fouch prepared a letter to Campbell objecting to the election because she
was not a neutral party. Fouch testified that Madison told him he had given the letter to
Campbell, but Fouch did not know when the letter was delivered. Campbell did not mention
the letter to Osborn.

On June 9, 2009, the County Board of Supervisors recognized CCPSEA as the
exclusive representative for the Public Safety Employees Unit (Public Safety or Unit 10)." On
August 11, the County and CCPSEA executed a side letter agreement." On October 5, 2010,
the County Board of Supervisors approved a new contract between the County and CCPSEA
for Unit 10 from July 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011.19
On September 7, 2010, the County Board of Supervisors approved a new contract
between SEIU and the County for the Miscellaneous unit from July 1, 2010 through
August 31, 2011.20
As of late October 2010, there are 59 positions in the Public Safety unit, and 283
positions in the Miscellaneous unit. Seven Deputy Probation Officers I, II, and III have always
held limited term peace officer status. In May 2008, after approving the unit
modification/severance petition, Employee Relations Officer Osborn learned that emergency
legislation had granted limited term peace officer status to the 4 Correctional Corporals, 10
Correctional Officers/Matrons, and 2 Correctional Sergeants.
"The existing SEIU-County MOU term was January 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010.
On October 6, 2009, during Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-10, 21 Unit 7 employees were laid off.
Bargaining Unit 10 employees would contribute 5.6 percent to their retirement until
June 30, 2010. As a result, scheduled layoffs of 3.39 full time equivalent (FTE) positions were
rescinded, and 3.6 positions were added to the unit for FY 2009-10.
Bargaining Unit 10 employees contribute 3 percent to their retirement. The County
increased health insurance contributions by 4.9 percent, with an additional increase equaling
75 percent of total benefit premiums; the cash in lieu of benefits option also increased. Neither
the 2009 side letter nor the 2010-11 contract provided for furloughs of Unit 10 employees.
Bargaining Unit 7 employee salaries were reduced 4.6 percent over 26 pay periods.
There are 12 furlough days, 7 fixed and 5 floating. The County increased its health insurance
contributions by 4.9 percent, with an additional increase equaling 75 percent of total benefit
premiums; the cash in lieu of benefits option also increased. The vacation allotment was
increased by 12 days so employees could continue to accrue vacation despite the furlough
days. Three new job classes were eligible for uniform allowances.
13
On June 9, 2009, the County Board of Supervisors recognized CCPSEA as the
exclusive representative for the Public Safety Employees Unit (Public Safety or Unit 10). 17 On
August 11, the County and CCPSEA executed a side letter agreement. 18 On October 5, 2010,
the County Board of Supervisors approved a new contract between the County and CCPSEA
for Unit 10 from July 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011. 19
On September 7, 2010, the County Board of Supervisors approved a new contract
between SEIU and the County for the Miscellaneous unit from July 1, 2010 through
August 31, 2011.20
As of late October 2010, there are 59 positions in the Public Safety unit, and 283
positions in the Miscellaneous unit. 	Seven Deputy Probation Officers I, II, and III have always
held limited term peace officer status. In May 2008, after approving the unit
modification/severance petition, Employee Relations Officer Osborn learned that emergency
legislation had granted limited term peace officer status to the 4 Correctional Corporals, 10
Correctional Officers/Matrons, and 2 Correctional Sergeants.
17 The existing SEID-County MOU term was January 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010.
On October 6, 2009, during Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-10, 21 Unit 7 employees were laid off.
18 Bargaining Unit 10 employees would contribute 5 .6 percent to their retirement until
June 30, 2010. As a result, scheduled layoffs of 3.39 full time equivalent (FTE) positions were
rescinded, and 3.6 positions were added to the unit for FY 2009-10.
19 Bargaining Unit IO employees contribute 3 percent to their retirement. The County
increased health insurance contributions by 4.9 percent, with an additional increase equaling
7 5 percent of total benefit premiums; the cash in lieu of benefits option also increased. 	Neither
the 2009 side letter nor the 2010-11 contract provided for furloughs of Unit 10 employees.
20 Bargaining Unit 7 employee salaries were reduced 4.6 percent over 26 pay periods.
There are 12 furlough days, 7 fixed and 5 floating. 	The County increased its health insurance
contributions by 4.9 percent, with an additional increase equaling 75 percent of total benefit
premiums; the cash in lieu of benefits option also increased. The vacation allotment was
increased by 12 days so employees could continue to accrue vacation despite the furlough
days. Three new job classes were eligible for uniform allowances.
13

All but one employee in the Public Safety unit signed authorizations for membership
dues deductions to CCPSEA.
Employee Relations Officer Osborn testified that it was not the County's historical
practice to seek agreement from all parties on selection of a neutral third party to conduct
elections. Her testimony was not controverted.
ISSUES
1 . 	Did the County act inconsistently with or otherwise violate EERO section 9 by
approving the CCPSEA severance petition for a Public Safety bargaining unit which contained
limited term peace officers (Deputy Probation Officers I, II, and III, Correctional Corporals,
Correctional Officers/Matrons, Correctional Sergeants) and non-peace officer classes in March
2009?
Did the County act inconsistently with or otherwise violate EERO section 7 by
twice replacing CSMCS as the third party neutral election supervisor in the severance petition
election, first with the Tuolumne County Human Resources Department, and then with retired
CSMCS Mediator Campbell, in April and May 2009 without discussions with or agreement by
SEIU?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
arging party must prove the allegations of an unfair practice complaint by a
preponderance of the evidence. (California State University (San Francisco) (1986) PERB
Decision No. 559-H; PERB Regulation 32178.) Preponderante of the evidence has been
defined by the courts as "evidence that has more convincing force than that opposed t 	"
(Glage v. Hawes Firearms Co. (1990) 226
evidence is usually defined in terms of the probability of the truth, or such evidence, which
when weighed against opposing evidence, has the greater probability of truth. (California
14
All but one employee in the Public Safety unit signed authorizations for membership
dues deductions to CCPSEA.
Employee Relations Officer Osborn testified that it was not the County's historical
practice to seek agreement from all parties on selection
of
a neutral third party to conduct
elections. Her testimony was not controverted.
ISSUES
1.	
Did the County act inconsistently with or otherwise violate EERO section 9 by
approving the CCPSEA severance petition for a Public Safety bargaining unit which contained
limited term peace officers (Deputy Probation Officers
I,
II, and III, Correctional Corporals,
Correctional Officers/Matrons, Correctional Sergeants) and non-peace officer classes in March
2009? 
2.	
Did the County act inconsistently with or otherwise violate EERO section 7 by
twice replacing CSMCS as the third party neutral election supervisor in the severance petition
election, first with the Tuolumne County Human Resources Department, and then with retired
CSMCS Mediator Campbell, in April and May 2009 without discussions with or agreement by
SEIU?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
14
2 .
A ch	charging party must prove the allegations of an unfair practice complaint by a
preponderance of the evidence. (California State University (San Francisco) (1986)
Decision No. 559-H; PERB Regulation 32178.) Preponderance
of
the evidence has been
defined by the courts as "evidence that has more convincing force than that opposed to 	"	o it.
(Glage
v.
Hawes Firearms Co. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d	Cal.App.3d 314 (Glage).) Preponderante of the	314 (Glage).) Preponderance
of
the
evidence is usually defined in terms of the probability of the truth, or such evidence, which
when weighed against opposing evidence, has the greater probability of truth. (California

Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4" 1133.) If the
evidence is so evenly balanced that one is unable to say that evidence on either side of an issue
preponderates, the finding on that issue must be against the party who has the burden of
proving it. (Glage, supra.) The relevant facts in this case are undisputed, however. At issue is
the proper characterization of the language of MMBA and County EERO.
This is a case of first impression. No cases directly on point were cited by the three
parties or found after independent research. This is not a dispute over the reasonableness of
the two sections of the County EERO. The issues are whether the County violated two local
rules which it had apparently never enforced for one group of peace officers, and in selecting a
neutral election supervisor.
MMBA section 3500 states that its purpose is to
promote the improvement of personnel management and
employer-employee relations by providing a uniform basis for
recognizing the right of public employees to join organizations of
their own choice and be represented by those organizations in
their employment relationships with public agencies.
Public Safety Unit and EERO Section 9
It is undisputed that County EERO section 9 requires peace officers and limited term
peace officers to be represented in separate bargaining units composed solely of such peace
officers. Under the local rule, the County has had two peace officer-only units, Deputy
Sheriffs and Sheriffs' Management, since 1998. Notwithstanding section 9, it is also
uncontroverted that County Deputy Probation Officers, who are limited term peace officers,
have been part of a mixed unit of peace officers and non-peace officers since at least 1998,
represented by IUOE, CCEA, SEIU, and CCPSEA, respectively. The disputed Public Safety
unit also includes the limited term peace officer classes of Correctional Corporal, Correctional
Officer/Matron, and Correctional Sergeant, granted peace officer status in 2008. Throughout
15
Correctional Peace Officers Assn.
v.
State Personnel Bd. (1995)
10
Cal.4 th 1133.) If the
evidence is so evenly balanced that one
is
unable to say that evidence on either side
of
an issue
preponderates, the finding on that issue must be against the party who has the burden
of
proving it. (Glage, supra.) The relevant facts in this case are undisputed, however. At issue is
the proper characterization
of
the language
of
MMBA and County EERO.
This is a case
of
first impression. No cases directly on point were cited by the three
parties or found after independent research. This is not a dispute over the reasonableness
of
the two sections
of
the County EERO. The issues are whether the County violated two local
rules which it had apparently never enforced for one group
of
peace officers, and in selecting a
neutral election supervisor.
MMBA section 3500 states that its purpose is to
promote the improvement
of
personnel management and
employer-employee relations by providing a uniform basis for
recognizing the right
of
public employees to join organizations
of
their own choice and be represented by those organizations in
their employment relationships with public agencies.
Public Safety Unit and EERO Section 9
It is undisputed that County EERO section 9 requires peace officers and limited term
peace officers to be represented in separate bargaining units composed solely
of
such peace
officers. Under the local rule, the County has had two peace officer-only units, Deputy
Sheriffs and Sheriffs' Management, since 1998. Notwithstanding section 9, it is also
uncontroverted that County Deputy Probation Officers, who are limited term peace officers,
have been part of a mixed unit of peace officers and non-peace officers since at least 1998,
represented by IUOE, CCEA, SEIU, and CCPSEA, respectively. The disputed Public Safety
unit also includes the limited term peace officer classes of Correctional Corporal, Correctional
Officer/Matron, and Correctional Sergeant, granted peace officer status in 2008. Throughout
15

this history of representation of changing exclusive representatives after the filing of
decertification and unit modification/severance petitions, there is absolutely no evidence that
any of these peace officer classes ever sought to be included in a peace officer-only unit.
IUOE represented peace officers and non-peace officers in the mixed Miscellaneous
unit from at least 1998 to 2003 when it was replaced by CCEA. CCEA represented the mixed
Miscellaneous unit from 2003 until Fall 2005 when the County Board of Supervisors formally
recognized SEIU as exclusive representative following a decertification petition and election.
SEIU represented the mixed Miscellaneous unit from Fall 2005 until June 2009 when the
County Board of Supervisors formally recognized CCPSEA as the exclusive representative for
the mixed peace officer and non-peace officer Public Safety unit following the May 2009 unit
modification/severance petition and election. SEIU continues as the exclusive representative
of the Miscellaneous unit which now does not contain any peace officers.
SEIU argues that it is not inconsistently seeking to enforce EERO section 9 against
CCPSEA while benefiting from its non-enforcement as the exclusive representative of the
mixed Miscellaneous unit. The Union asserts that the mixed Miscellaneous unit was in
existence before 2000, when MMBA section 3507.1(b) was enacted. Section 3507.1(b)
provides:
Notwithstanding subdivision (a) and rules adopted by a public
agency pursuant to Section 3507, a bargaining unit in effect as of
the effective date of this section shall continue in effect unless
changed under the rules adopted by a public agency pursuant to
Section 3507. (21]
SEIU contends that the mixed Miscellaneous unit could "continue undisturbed" as a pre-
existing unit, but when the County granted the severance petition, it created a new unit
prohibited by EERO section 9. The Union construes MMBA section 3507.1(b) to prohibit
2 The complaint does not mention MMBA section 3507.1(b).
16
this history
of
representation
of
changing exclusive representatives after the filing
of
decertification and unit modification/severance petitions, there is absolutely no evidence that
any
of
these peace officer classes ever sought to be included in a peace officer-only unit.
IUOE represented peace officers and non-peace officers in the mixed Miscellaneous
unit from at least 1998 to 2003 when it was replaced by CCEA. CCEA represented the mixed
Miscellaneous unit from 2003 until Fall 2005 when the County Board
of
Supervisors formally
recognized SEIU as exclusive representative following a decertification petition and election.
SEIU represented the mixed Miscellaneous unit from Fall 2005 until June 2009 when
the
County Board
of
Supervisors formally recognized CCPSEA as the exclusive representative for
the mixed peace officer and non-peace officer Public Safety unit following the May 2009 unit
modification/severance petition and election. SEIU continues as the exclusive representative
of
the Miscellaneous unit which now does not contain any peace officers.
SEIU argues that it is not inconsistently seeking to enforce EERO section 9 against
CCPSEA while benefiting from its non-enforcement as the exclusive representative
of the
mixed Miscellaneous unit. The Union asserts that the mixed Miscellaneous unit was in
existence before 2000, when MMBA section 3507.l(b) was enacted. 	Section 3507.l(b)
provides:
Notwithstanding subdivision (a) and rules adopted by a public
agency pursuant to Section 3507, a bargaining unit in effect as
of
the effective date
of
this section shall continue in effect unless
changed under the rules adopted by a public agency pursuant to
Section 3507.
[2"
11
SEIU contends that the mixed Miscellaneous unit could "continue undisturbed" as a pre-
existing unit, but when the County granted the severance petition, it created a new unit
prohibited by EERO section 9. The Union construes MMBA section 3507.1 (b) to prohibit
2 The complaint does not mention MMBA section 3507.l(b).
16

public employers from interfering with existing units when there are changes in peace officer
status or local rules. This argument is difficult to follow and cannot be accepted, given other
provisions in the MMBA.
MMBA section 3507(a)(4) allows public agencies to adopt reasonable rules and
regulations for the administration of employer-employee relations, including the exclusive
recognition of employee organizations formally recognized pursuant to a vote of the
employees. This is what occurred here. Pursuant to Article II, sections 4 through 12,
including section 9, of the County EERO, CCPSEA filed a unit modification/severance petition
to create a new Public Safety unit; the severance petition was granted by the County Employee
Relations Officer; SEIU appealed the approval of the petition; the County Board of
Supervisors rejected the appeal and recommended an election; an election was conducted in
which the proposed unit employees voted for CCPSEA over SEIU by a substantial margin; and
the Board of Supervisors formally recognized CCPSEA as the exclusive representative for the
Public Safety unit. The Union does not challenge the County's procedural compliance with the
EERO in processing the severance petition, but only its decision to approve the petition and
proposed new unit. The mixed Miscellaneous unit exclusively represented by SEIU continued
until it was changed by the filing of the severance petition and subsequent election in which
CCPSEA was selected over SEIU as exclusive representative for a mixed Public Safety
unit under the County's local rules. If all provisions of EERO Article II are given effect, the
pre-existing "grandfathered" mixed Miscellaneous unit continued until it was changed under
local rules by the election. Thus, no violation of MMBA section 3507.1(b) occurred.
Past practice has been define 	he unfair practice/unilateral change context. To be
binding, a past practice must be (1) unequivocal; (2) clearly enunciated and acted upon; and
readily ascertainable over a reasonable period of time as a fixed and established practice
17
public employers from interfering with existing units when there are changes in peace officer
status or local rules. 	This argument is difficult to follow and cannot be accepted, given
other
provisions in the MMBA.
MMBA section 3507(a)(4) allows public agencies to adopt reasonable rules and
regulations for the administration
of
employer-employee relations, including the exclusive
recognition
of
employee organizations formally recognized pursuant to a vote
of
the
employees. This is what occurred here. Pursuant to Article II, sections 4 through 12,
including section 9,
of
the County EERO, CCPSEA filed a unit modification/severance petition
to create a new Public Safety unit; the severance petition was granted by the County Employee
Relations Officer; SEIU appealed the approval
of
the petition; the County Board
of
Supervisors rejected the appeal and recommended an election; an election was conducted in
which the proposed unit employees voted for CCPSEA over SEIU by a substantial margin; and
the Board
of
Supervisors formally recognized CCPSEA as the exclusive representative for the
Public Safety unit. The Union does not challenge the County's procedural compliance
with
the
EERO in processing the severance petition, but only its decision to approve the petition and
proposed new unit. The mixed Miscellaneous unit exclusively represented by SEIU continued
until it was changed by the filing
of
the severance petition and subsequent election.in which
CCPSEA was selected over SEIU as exclusive representative for a mixed Public Safety
unit under the County's local rules.
	If
all provisions
of
EERO Article II are given effect, the
pre-existing "grandfathered" mixed Miscellaneous unit continued until it was changed under
local rules by the election. Thus, no violation
of
MMBA section 3507.l(b) occurred.
Past practice has been definedd in tthe unfair practice/unilateral change context. To be
binding, a past practice must be (1) unequivocal; (2) clearly enunciated and acted upon; and
(3) readily ascertainable over a reasonable period of time as a fixed and established	(3) 	practice
17

accepted by both parties. (Trustees of the California State University (2007) PERB Decision
No. 1886-H; Riverside Sheriff's Assn. v. County of Riverside (2003) 106 Cal.App.4"h 1285;
Hacienda La Puente Unified School District (1997) PERB Decision No. 1186.) It must be
"regular and consistent" or "historic and accepted." (Desert Sands Unified School District
(2010) PERB Decision No. 2092; County of Placer (2004) PERB Decision No. 1630-M
(Placer County). A long-standing practice need not be labeled as the employer's official
policy or reflected in the applicable contract. (City of Alhambra (2009) PERB Decision
No. 2036-M.)
The undisputed facts demonstrate that County Deputy Probation Officers were in the
mixed peace officer and non-peace officer Miscellaneous unit from 1998 through 2009, and are
now in the mixed Public Safety unit, notwithstanding EERO section 9. This 22-year history of
representation would certainly qualify as a "historic and accepted" and "fixed and established"
practice if the past practice doctrine is properly applied to these facts.
SEIU argues that the County and CCPSEA cannot rely on a past practice of mixed units
because it conflicts with the clear and unambiguous language of EERO section 9 and MMBA
section 3507.1(b). The Union cites Placer County, supra, PERB Decision No. 1630-M, as
holding that a public entity is not bound by past practice if the practice is contrary to the plain
language of the public entity's rules or procedures.
The Union's narrow, restrictive construction of MMBA section 3507.1(b) is rejected
for the above-stated reasons. SEIU also misstates the holding in Placer County, supra. In that
case, the Union asserted a past practice of the County's failure to enforce civil service rules
requiring complaints to be filed within 60 days, timelines incorporated into the parties' MOU.
The Board held that it was "debatable" whether the five instances of non-enforcement of
timelines and acceptance of complaints established a valid past practice. Citing Marysville
18	18
accepted by both parties. (Trustees of the California State University (2007) PERB Decision
No. 1886-H; Riverside Sheriff's Assn. v. County of Riverside (2003) 106 Cal.App.4 th 1285;
Hacienda La Puente Unified School District (1997) PERB Decision No. 1186.) It must be
"regular and consistent" or "historic and accepted." (Desert Sands Unified School District
(2010) PERB Decision No. 2092; County of Placer (2004) PERB Decision No. 1630-M
(Placer County). 	A long-standing practice need not be labeled as the employer's official
policy or reflected in the applicable contract. (City of Alhambra (2009) PERB Decision
No. 2036-M.)
The undisputed facts demonstrate that County Deputy Probation Officers were in the
mixed peace officer and non-peace officer Miscellaneous unit from 1998 through 2009, and are
now in the mixed Public Safety unit, notwithstanding EERO section 9. This 22-year history of
representation would certainly qualify as a "historic and accepted" and "fixed and established"
practice if the past practice doctrine is properly applied to these facts.
SEIU argues that the County and CCPSEA cannot rely on a past practice of mixed units
because it conflicts with the clear and unambiguous language of EERO section 9 and MMBA
section 3507.l(b). The Union cites Placer County, supra, PERB Decision No. 1630-M, as
holding that a public entity is not bound by past practice if the practice is contrary to the plain
language of the public entity's rules or procedures.
The Union's narrow, restrictive construction of MMBA section 3507.l(b) is rejected
for the above-stated reasons. 	SEIU also misstates the holding in Placer County, supra. 	In that
case, the Union asserted a past practice of the County's failure to enforce 	rules
requiring complaints to be filed within 60 days, timelines incorporated into the parties' MOU.
The Board held that it was "debatable" whether the five instances of non-enforcement of
timelines and acceptance of complaints established a valid past practice. Citing Marysville

Joint Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 314, PERB concluded that "the
County simply did not enforce a provision of the MOU they had every right to enforce."
There is no applicable contract language here. The County is not seeking to apply
EERO section 9 because of its past practice of not enforcing section 9, allowing Deputy
Probation Officers to elect to be included in a mixed bargaining unit of peace officers and non-
peace officers. In this case, past practice essentially equates to history of representation, a
factor long recognized in determination of appropriate bargaining units, and specifically set
forth in EERO section 9.
A basic rule of statutory construction is to construe an administrative regulation or rule
in harmony with the purposes, provisions, and policies of the governing statute. (Santa Clarita
Community College District (College of the Canyons) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1506; State
of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (1993) PERB Order No. Ad-246-S.)
Although MMBA allows a considerable degree of local regulation, where it sets a standard,
local divergence is not allowed. When looking at a local rule, the inquiry does not concern
whether PERB would find a different rule more reasonable. The question is whether the rule is
consistent with and effectuates the purposes of the express terms of MMBA. The standards
established by MMBA "may not be undercut by contradictory rules or procedures that would
frustrate its purposes." (County of Imperial (2007) PERB Decision No. 1916-M; International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. City of Gridley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 191; International
Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers v. City and County of San Francisco (2000)
79 Cal. App.4 1300; Huntington Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Huntington Beach
(1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 492.)
MMBA section 3508(a) provides, in pertinent part:
However, the governing body may not prohibit the right of
its employees who are full-time "peace officers," as that term
19
Joint Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 314, PERB concluded that "the
County simply did not enforce a provision of the MOU they had every right to enforce."
There is no applicable contract language here. The County is not seeking to apply
EERO section 9 because of its past practice of not enforcing section 9, allowing Deputy
Probation Officers to elect to be included in a mixed bargaining unit of peace officers and non-
peace officers. In this case, past practice essentially equates to history of representation, a
factor long recognized in determination of appropriate bargaining units, and specifically set
forth in EERO section 9.
A basic rule of statutory construction is to construe an administrative regulation or rule
in harmony with the purposes, provisions, and policies of the governing statute. (Santa Clarita
Community College District (College of the Canyons) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1506; State
of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (1993) PERB Order No. Ad-246-S.)
Although MMBA allows a considerable degree of local regulation, where it sets a standard,
local divergence is not allowed. When looking at a local rule, the inquiry does not concern
whether PERB would find a different rule more reasonable. The question is whether the rule is
consistent with and effectuates the purposes of the express terms of MMBA. The standards
established by MMBA "may not be undercut by contradictory rules or procedures that would
frustrate its purposes." (County of Imperial (2007) PERB Decision No. 1916-M; International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. City of Gridley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 191; International
Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers v. City and County of San Francisco (2000)
79 Cal.App.4 th 1300; Huntington Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City o,f Huntington Beach
(1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 492.)
MMBA section 3508(a) provides, in pertinent part:
However, the governing body may not prohibit the right of
its employees who are full-time "peace officers," as that term
19

is defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of
Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, to join or participate in
employee organizations which are composed solely of those
peace officers, . . . and which are not subordinate to any
other organization.
Presumably section 3508(a) was the statutory basis for EERO section 9. The two are
fundamentally different, however. MMBA section 3508(a) grants peace officers the
affirmative right to join or participate in peace officer-only employee organizations, a right
which, if exercised, a public agency cannot deny or prohibit. Nothing in section 3508(a)
mandates or requires peace officers to exercise this right to separateness. Section 9 takes this
one step further, by limiting the ability of County peace officers to be exclusively represented
to peace officer-only bargaining units. Section 3508(a) confers a right to be separate on
statewide peace officers, while section 9 prohibits County peace officers from being
represented by an organization which includes non-peace officers even if they choose such
representation, as did the Deputy Probation Officers, Correctional Corporals, Correctional
Officers/Matrons, and Correctional Sergeants in this severance petition and election.
Requiring rigid adherence to section 9 is inconsistent with the exercise of employee free choice
to join and be represented by employee organizations recognized as a stated purpose of
MMBA in section 3500.
SEIU has failed to meet its burden of proof that the County violated the MMBA by its
non-enforcement of EERO section 9 to limited term peace officers who elected representation
in a mixed peace officer and non-peace officer bargaining unit by a different exclusive
representative.
Third Party Neutral Election Supervisor and EERO Section 7
In July 2002, Assistant County Counsel Sirias and Employee Relations Officer Osborn
informed the County Board of Supervisors that recent changes to the MMBA "specifically
20	20
is defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830)
of
Title 3
of
Part 2
of
the Penal Code, to join or participate in
employee organizations which are composed solely
of
those
peace officers,
...
and which are not subordinate to any
other organization.
Presumably section 3508(a) was the statutory basis for EERO section
9.
	The two are
fundamentally different, however. MMBA section 3508(a) grants peace officers the
affirmative right to
join
or participate in peace officer-only employee organizations, a
right
which,
if
exercised, a public agency cannot deny or prohibit. Nothing in section 3508(a)
mandates or requires peace officers to exercise this right to separateness. Section 9 takes this
one step further, by limiting the ability
of
County peace officers to be exclusively represented
to peace officer-only bargaining units. 	Section 3508(a) confers a right to be separate
on
statewide peace officers, while section 9 prohibits County peace officers from being
represented by an organization which includes non-peace officers even
if
they choose
such
representation, as did the Deputy Probation Officers, Correctional Corporals, Correctional
Officers/Matrons, and Correctional Sergeants in this severance petition and election.
Requiring rigid adherence to section 9 is inconsistent with the exercise
of
employee free choice
to join and be represented by employee organizations recognized as a stated purpose
of
MMBA in section 3500.
SEIU has failed to meet its burden
of
proof that the County violated the MMBA by its
non-enforcement
of
EERO section 9 to limited term peace officers who elected representation
in a mixed peace officer and non-peace officer bargaining unit by a different exclusive
representative.
Third Party Neutral Election Supervisor and EERO Section 7
In July 2002, Assistant County Counsel Sirias and Employee Relations Officer Osborn
informed the County Board of Supervisors that recent changes to the MMBA "specifically

required agencies to follow unit determination dispute resolution protocol that placed unit
determination in the hands of neutral third parties," citing "new" MMBA section 3507.1(c).
The memorandum (memo) stated that this "relatively minor change" required amendment of
EERO sections 5, 6, and 7 to provide that the Employee Relations Officer would "follow the
procedures of MMBA section 3507.1(c) for final determination by a neutral third party"
(section 5) and "for placing contested matters under section 6 in care of a neutral third party to
conduct a secret ballot election, if necessary" (section 7).
The stipulated and established facts demonstrate that the County did not have a past
practice of seeking agreement from all parties to a representation election on selection of a
neutral third party election supervisor both before and after this dispute arose. Instead,
Employee Relations Officer Osborn contacted CSMCS to conduct these elections. For
example, in Spring and Fall, 2005, then-CSMCS Mediator Campbell conducted the election in
the decertification petition filed by SEIU for the Miscellaneous unit. In Fall 2007, Campbell
supervised the agency fee election in the Miscellaneous unit, and certified the results
approving the fees.
SEIU asserts that EERO section 7 "unambiguously" requires the County to use MMBA
section 3507.1(c) procedures when it selects neutral third parties to conduct elections. The
Union ignores the operative and qualifying words, "if necessary," at the end of EERO
section 7, however. Construing the language in its entirety, EERO section 7 requires MMBA
section 3507.1(c) procedures for selection of a third party neutral to conduct elections if
necessary. It has not been necessary for the County to invoke MMBA section 3507.1(c)
because of its history in selecting CSMCS to supervise these elections.
The same procedures were followed in the instant case, at least initially. After the
filing of the unit modification/severance petition, from Fall 2007 through Spring 2008,
21	21
required agencies to follow unit determination dispute resolution protocol that placed
unit
determination in the hands
of
neutral third parties," citing "new" MMBA section 3507
.1
( c ).
The memorandum (memo) stated that this "relatively minor change" required amendment
of
EERO sections 5, 6, and 7 to provide that the Employee Relations Officer would
"follow
the
procedures
of
MMBA section 3 507.1 (c) for final determination by a neutral third party"
(section 5) and "for placing contested matters under section 6 in care
of
a neutral third
party
to
conduct a secret ballot election,
if
necessary" (section 7).
The stipulated and established facts demonstrate that the County did not have a
past
practice
of
seeking agreement from all parties to a representation election on selection
of
a
neutral third party election supervisor both before and after this dispute arose. Instead,
Employee Relations Officer Osborn contacted CSMCS to conduct these elections. For
example, in Spring and Fall, 2005, then-CSMCS Mediator Campbell conducted the election in
the decertification petition filed by SEIU for the Miscellaneous unit. In Fall 2007, Campbell
supervised the agency fee election in the Miscellaneous unit, and certified the results
approving the fees.
SEIU asserts that EERO section 7 "unambiguously" requires the County to use
MMBA
section 3 507
.1
(c) procedures when it selects neutral third parties to conduct elections.
	The
Union ignores the operative and qualifying words,
"if
necessary," at the end
of
EERO
section 	however. 	Construing the language in its entirety, EERO section 7 requires MMBA
section 3507.l(c) procedures for selection
of
a third party neutral to conduct elections
if
necessary. 	It has not been necessary for the County to invoke MMBA section 3507.l(c)
because
of
its history in selecting CSMCS to supervise these elections.
The same procedures were followed in the instant case, at least initially. After the
filing of the unit modification/severance petition, from Fall 2007 through Spring 2008,

CSMCS Mediator Campbell attended a meeting on the petition, conducted one mediation
session, and attempted other mediations."In September 2008, CSMCS notified the parties
that the election would be held in October, but the election did not proceed because of the
charge filed by SEIU. In March and April 2009, after the County Board of Supervisors denied
the Union's appeal of the approved petition and recommended a vote, Employee Relations
Officer Osborn contacted CSMCS to supervise the election. In the course of communications
over whether CSMCS would supervise the election due to the disputed unit and the filing of
this charge, CSMCS Chief Roose informed the parties that another neutral could conduct the
election.
It is undisputed that in April 2009, Employee Relations Officer Osborn contacted the
Tuolumne County Human Resources Department to conduct the election only after CSMCS
refused to run it, based on communications with SEIU over the disputed unit and the filing of
this charge. It is also uncontroverted that Osborn contacted Campbell, now retired from
CSMCS, to supervise the election after Tuolumne County refused to conduct it, following
communications with the Union over the disputed unit.
SEIU has failed to meet its burden of proof that the County violated the MMBA
because EERO section 7 does not require use of MMBA section 3507.1(c) procedures. In
addition, the County had a past practice of selecting CSMCS as the third party neutral election
supervisor until it was required to find other neutral election supervisors because CSMCS
would not conduct the election.
" In its November 2007 appeal of the approved severance petition, SEIU also requested
mediation of it by Campbell.
22	22
CSMCS Mediator Campbell attended a meeting on the petition, conducted one mediation
session, and attempted other mediations.22 In September 2008, CSMCS notified the parties
that the election would be held in October, but the election did not proceed because
of
the
charge filed by SEIU. In March and April 2009, after the County Board
of
Supervisors denied
the Union's appeal
of
the approved petition and recommended a vote, Employee Relations
Officer Osborn contacted CSMCS to supervise the election. In the course
of
communications
over whether CSMCS would supervise the election due to the disputed unit and the filing
of
this charge, CSMCS Chief Roose informed the parties that another neutral could conduct the
election.
It is undisputed that in April 2009, Employee Relations Officer Osborn contacted the
Tuolumne County Human Resources Department to conduct the election only after CSMCS
refused to run it, based on communications with SEIU over the disputed unit and the filing
of
this charge. 	It
is
also uncontroverted that Osborn contacted Campbell, now retired from
CSMCS, to supervise the election after Tuolumne County refused to conduct it, following
communications with the Union over the disputed unit.
SEIU has failed to meet its burden
of
proof that the County violated the MMBA
because EERO section 7 does not require use
of
MMBA section 3507.l(c) procedures. 	In
addition, the County had a past practice of selecting CSMCS as the third party neutral election
supervisor until it was required to find other neutral election supervisors because CSMCS
would not conduct the election.
In sum, 	does not contest the validity
of
the severance election in which
employees in the Public Safety unit voted overwhelmingly to change their exclusive
In sum, SEIU does not contest the validity of the severance election in which
employees in the Public Safety unit voted overwhelmingly to change their exclusive
22 In its November 2007 appeal of the approved severance petition, SEIU also requested
mediation of it by Campbell.

representative to CCPSEA. The Union continues to exclusively represent the Miscellaneous
unit and receive agency fees. To set aside the election results based on the technical language
of the EERO, given the past practice to the contrary, would elevate form over substance. It
would also not promote the purposes of MMBA section 3500 which recognizes employee free
choice in joining and being represented by an exclusive representative.
Accordingly, the unfair practice charge and unfair practice complaint are dismissed.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record
in this matter, the complaint and underlying unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CE-596-M,
Service Employees International Union Local 1021 v. County of Calaveras, are hereby
DISMISSED.
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32305, this Proposed
Decision and Order shall become final unless a party files a statement of exceptions with the
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) itself within 20 days of service of this
Decision. The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
In accordance with PERB regulations, the statement of exceptions should identify by
page citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any, relied upon for such
exceptions. (Cal. Code Regs 	32300.)
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB
business day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $5 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code,
$ 1 1020, subd. (a).) A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile
23
representative to CCPSEA. The Union continues to exclusively represent the Miscellaneous
unit and receive agency fees. 	To set aside the election results based on the technical language
of the EERO, given the past practice to the contrary, would elevate form over substance. 	It
would also not promote the purposes of MMBA section 3500 which recognizes employee free
choice in joining and being represented by an exclusive representative.
Accordingly, the unfair practice charge and unfair practice complaint are dismissed.
PROPOSED ORDER
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record
in this matter, the complaint and underlying unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CE-596-M,
Service Employees International Union Local I 021 v. County of Calaveras, are hereby
DISMISSED.
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32305, this Proposed
Decision and Order shall become final unless a party files a statement of exceptions with the
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) itself within 20 days of service of this
Decision. The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
In accordance with PERB regulations, the statement of exceptions should identify by
page citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any, relied upon for such
exceptions. 	(Cal. Code Regs., 	8, § 32300.)	., tit. 8, $
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB
business day. 	(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code,
§ 11020, subd. (a).) A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile
23

transmission before the close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
which meets the requirements of California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32135,
subdivision (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, $$ 32090 and 32130.)
Any statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served concurrently with its
filing upon each party to this proceeding. Proof of service shall accompany each copy served
on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $$ 32300, 32305, 32140,
and 32135, subd. (c).)
Christine A. Bologna
Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge
24	24
transmission before the close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
which meets the requirements of California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32135,
subdivision (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.)
Any statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served concurrently with its
filing upon each party to this proceeding. Proof of service shall accompany each copy served
on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32300, 32305, 32140,
and 32135, subd. (c).)
Christine A. Bologna
Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge