California Faculty Association (PERB A347H)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY,
, Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA FACULTY ASSOCIATION,
June 9, 2005Exclusive Representative.
Case No. LA-UM-738-H
Administrative Appeal
PERB Order No. 	Ad-347-H
Appearances: 	Rothner, Segall & Greenstone by Bernhard Rohrbacher, Attorney, for California
Faculty Association; Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & Sommers by Margo A. Feinberg,
Attorney, for California Alliance of Academic Student Employees/International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Shek, Members.
DECISION
DUNCAN, Chairman: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by the California Faculty Association (CFA) of the Regional
Director's dismissal (attached) of its unit modification petition seeking inclusion of the
Instructional Student Assistant (ISA) classification in its instructional faculty unit (Unit 3) at
California State University. 	The petition here seeks to add the classification of ISA to Unit 3
Faculty of the California State University (Unit 3). 	Opposition to the petition was filed by the
Trustees of the California State University (CSU) and the California Alliance of Academic
Student Employees/International Union, United Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO (UAW).
r	 	------	 ---
•

UAW alleges that the CFA petition is barred by the Higher Education Employer-
Employee Relations Act (HEERA).1 UAW states that under HEERA section 3577(b)(2) a
petition should be dismissed if "[w]ithin the previous 12 months, either an employee
organization other than petitioner has been lawfully . . . described in the petition, or a majority
of the votes cast in a representation election held under subdivision (a) were cast for 'no
representation.'" UAW was certified to represent the unit that includes the ISAs in PERB Case
No. LA-RR-1099-H on August 23, 2004.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including, but not limited to,
the unit modification petition filed by CFA, the responses to the petition from CSU and UAW,
the Regional Director's Order to Show Cause, responses to the order, the Regional Director's
dismissal letter, CFA's appeal, and the response to the appeal from UAW. We find the
dismissal to be free of prejudicial error and adopt it as the decision of the Board itself.
ORDER
The unit modification petition in Case No. LA-UM-738-H is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Whitehead and Shek joined in this Decision.
HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560, et seq.
22

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PERB
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8383
Fax:(916)327-6377
December 3, 2004
Bernhard Rohrbacher, Attorney
Rothner, Segall & Greenstone
510 South Marengo Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101-3115
Re: 	California State University
Case No.LA-UM-738-H
Dear Mr. Rohrbacher:
The above-referenced unit modification petition was filed with the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB or Board) on October 19, 2004, by California Faculty Association
(CFA). 	The petition seeks to add the classification of Instructional Student Assistant (ISA) to
Unit 3 - Faculty of the California State University (CSU).
By letter dated October 26, 2004 (copy enclosed), CFA was advised that its petition was
subject to dismissal, for reasons summarized as follows:
The petition in LA-UM-738-H states on its face that it concerns
the proposed addition of unrepresented classifications or
- -positions to Unit 3. However, the information provided with the
petition contradicts the assertion that employees in the
Instructional Student Assistant classification are unrepresented.
Both PERB records and the information provided by CFA
demonstrate that the Instructional Student Assistant classification
is not unrepresented, but rather is included in the UAW-
represented unit The petition must be dismissed as improperly
filed on this basis alone. Further, as discussed above, the instant
petition seeks to re-litigate issues raised and decided in PERB
Case No. LA-UM-723-H.
CFA was further afforded an opportunity to show cause why its petition should not be
dismissed, and a timely response was received from CFA. 	Both CSU and California Alliance
of Academic Student Employees/UAW (UAW) submitted responses to the CFA submission.
CFA's Position
CFA contends that neither of the grounds for dismissal summarized above withstands scrutiny.
First, for two reasons, CFA asserts that CSU's voluntary recognition of the UAW as the
_____j('
---

C
representative of the Instructional Student Assistant classification, which CFA contends was
"neither sought from or certified by the Board," does not block its petition.
LA-UM-738-H
December 3, 2004
Page 2
CFA relies initially on Santa Clarita Community College District ("College of the Canyons')
(2003) PERB Decision No. 1506 (Santa Clarita) In Santa Clarita, the Board held that the
employer violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 when it entered into a
unit modification agreement that added unrepresented part-time faculty to an established unit
while on notice that a different union was seeking to represent the part-time faculty. 	In that
case, the exclusive representative with which the employer entered into an agreement had not
demonstrated any support among the part-time faculty employees,2 and the competing union at
least claimed to have support from approximately twenty percent of the employees in
question.3
In the present case, CFA argues that CSU was on notice, at the time of its agreement to
recognize UAW, that CFA was seeking in PERB Case No. LA-UM-723-H to include student
employees "similar to ISAs" in Unit 3. Thus, according to CFA, it would be consistent with
the holdings of Santa Clarita and Victor Valley Community College District (2003) PERB
Decision No. 1543 to find here that CFA's unit modification petition is blocked by the
voluntary agreement of CSU to recognize UAW as the exclusive representative of the ISAs.
The second prong of this argument cites Article 1.7 of the collective bargaining agreement
between CFA and CSU. 	The cited provision requires CSU to notify CFA in advance of new
classifications related to bargaining unit classifications in Unit 3. 	CFA may then request a
meeting to discuss whether the new classification is appropriate for Unit 3. 	If the parties
. disagree, their agreement further provides that either party may seek a unit modification
pursuant to procedures established by PERB. 	CFA contends that dismissal of its instant
petition would "eviscerate CFA's rights" under the collective bargaining agreement and
"reduce Article 1.7 to empty verbiage." CFA opines that dismissal of this case would allow
CSU, in the future, to avoid its obligations under the agreement by voluntarily recognizing
another union as the representative of newly-established classifications, eroding the rights
negotiated by CFA.
Turning to the second aspect of the grounds for dismissal addressed in the October 26 letter,
CFA disputes the conclusion that "the instant petition seeks to re-litigate issues raised and
decided in PERB Case No. LA-UM-723-H." CFA asserts the earlier case addressed only two
issues: (1) the scope of the exclusion agreed upon by the parties in 1991 and whether the
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www. perb.ca.gov.
2 In fact, that union withdrew a unit modification petition filed with PERB after being
informed that it would have to demonstrate support of at least a majority of the affected
employees.
3 The union seeking to represent part-time faculty in a separate unit subsequently filed a
representation petition with PERB that was accompanied by proof of support from a majority
of the employees in the proposed unit.
., (

CLA-UM-738-H
December 3, 2004
Page 3
exclusion was limited to student employees who are not statutory employees; and (2) whether a
degree requirement of instructional employment must exist in order for a student employee to
be excluded from Unit 3. CFA contends that neither of these issues need be revisited in the
instant case in order to determine whether ISAs should be included in Unit 3.
CSU's Position
CSU opposes the CFA petition, noting that there are no student employee classifications
presently included in Unit 3, and supporting the view that the ISA classification is already
included in the unit represented by UAW.
CSU also argues that, in PERB Case No. LA-RR-1099-H, filed in January 2004, UAW
petitioned for and demonstrated majority employee support in a bargaining unit including
student employees in various student assistant classifications who performed "teaching,
grading and tutoring." CSU notes that CFA did not intervene on that petition nor file any
competing petition seeking to represent employees in student assistant classifications. 	CSU's
argument continues as follows:
Contrary to CFA's representations, it was necessary for the CSU
to create the "new" ISA classification to properly identify which
student-employees should be included in the UAW unit. This
was critical since the UAW petition included, in addition to
Teaching Associates, those student assistants who perform
"teaching, grading or tutoring," and not all student employees in
the various student assistant classifications perform these duties.
The fundamental work the UAW petitioned for, and that these
student employees are performing, has not changed. The ISA
classification was thus created in order to segregate out the
student employees that performed these "teaching, grading or
tutoring" [duties] for a majority of their work time from other
student workers that do not and are therefore not in the certified
UAW unit.
CSU also disputes CFA's claim that dismissal of the CFA petition would undermine or
eviscerate Article 1.7 of the CSU/CFA agreement. CSU argues that the contract provision
does not require CSU to provide notice to and bargain with CFA "over the establishment of
classifications for work that has been certified to be in other units."
CSU also contends that CFA's reliance on Santa Clarita is misplaced, as there was no
competing petition for the student employees in question when the unit and recognition
agreement with UAW was reached.
(

C 	CLA-UM-738-H
December 3, 2004
Page 4
UAW's Position
UAW likewise argues that the holdings of Santa Clarita are inapplicable to this matter, as
UAW obtained certification for its unit through PERB processes and not by external voluntary
recognition or an amendment to a collective bargaining agreement while a competing union's
representation claim was known. Rather, UAW filed a petition on January 7, 2004, seeking to
represent, inter alia, student assistants who teach, grade or tutor; demonstrated majority
support in the proposed unit; participated in various settlement conferences; reached agreement
on an appropriate unit with CSU; and, in August 2004, obtained PERB certification in
accordance with PERB Regulation 510964 and Government Code section 3574.
UAW contends that CFA is attempting, through the instant unit modification petition, what it
did not do in a timely manner with respect to LA-RR-1099-H. That is, CFA is attempting to
file a competing claim of representation concerning student employees who teach, grade or
tutor, but doing so long after a timely claim could be filed and doing so without any
demonstrated proof of employee support.
In sum, UAW urges dismissal of the CFA petition.
Discussion
As discussed in my earlier letter, and as referenced by both CSU and UAW in their recent
responses, PERB records confirm that the California Alliance of Academic Student
Employees/UAW was certified in PERB Case No. LA-RR-1099-H, on August 23, 2004, as the
exclusive representative of an Academic Student Employees unit. 	The Certification of
Exclusive Representative issued by PERB in that case (see enclosed) described the unit as
including the classifications of Teaching Associate, Instructional Student Assistant and
Graduate Assistant.
While UAW's petition in LA-RR-1099-H did not list the classification of Instructional Student
Assistant, the petition did seek, inter alia, recognition in a unit including employees in various
student assistant classifications, where the employees perform teaching, grading or tutoring
duties. The subsequent agreement between UAW and CSU, in pertinent part, stated:
The CSU shall create the new classification "Instructional
Student Assistant." . . . A Student Assistant shall be classified as
an Instructional Student Assistant in an individual department or
equivalent organizational unit if he/she performs grading, tutoring
or instruction for a majority of his/her work hours during the
duration of the academic term in that individual department or
equivalent organizational unit on a CSU campus.
PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
(

LA-UM-738-H
December 3, 2004
Page 5
Thus, while the ISA classification is new, the work performed by incumbents in the
classification is identical to the work performed by employees covered by the UAW petition.
The PERB certification of UAW as exclusive representative was issued following issuance of
an administrative determination that UAW had demonstrated proof of majority support among
employees included in the agreed-upon unit. As observed by UAW and CSU, at no time
during the pendency of LA-RR-1099-H did CFA file a competing claim of representation. 	The
earlier petition filed by CFA in Case No. LA-UM-723-H, even if construed to affect student
assistants who perform teaching, grading and/or tutoring duties, was not a petition to add
unrepresented positions to Unit 3 and was not filed with proof of employee support.5
Under these facts, CSU and UAW argue persuasively that Santa Clarita does not support
CFA's position. Rather, the holdings of Santa Clarita would be turned upside down if used to
uphold CFA's desired outcome. In Santa Clarita, an employer and incumbent union agreed to
add previously unrepresented positions to a unit, without any evidence of employee support
and despite knowledge that a competing union claimed the support of at least twenty percent of
the affected employees. 	In this case, CFA seeks, without any evidence of employee support
and despite demonstrated proof of majority support for UAW, and despite a PERB certification
issued two months prior to its petition, to add employees to Unit 3.
CFA's argument that dismissal of its petition would "eviscerate" its rights under Article 1.7 of
the collective bargaining agreement is not persuasive. As previously discussed, the creation of
the "new" classification at issue here was a result of the agreement on a unit by CSU and UAW
to include certain employees then classified as student assistants and an agreement to
distinguish those student employees in the unit from those who are not by creating the
Instructional Student Assistant classification. 	Moreover, the agreement between CFA and
CSU regarding bargaining obligations vis-a-vis new classifications does not and cannot change
PERB's authority to determine appropriate units or decide unit modification issues. PERB
does not enforce agreements between parties (Government Code section 3563.2(b)) and
existing agreements regarding unit placement are not binding on PERB where a unit placement
dispute has arisen and one party to an agreement brings the dispute to PERB for resolution
pursuant to the Board's unit modification procedures. It is PERB's procedures that are
controlling, not the parties' agreement. 	(Hemet Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision
No. 820.)
The final CFA argument to be considered concerns whether the instant petition seeks to re-
litigate issues previously considered and decided in PERB Case No. LA-UM-723-H. 	CFA
itself posits somewhat contradictory arguments in this regard. On the one hand, CFA argues
A petition to add unrepresented classifications or positions to an established unit must
be filed under PERB Regulation 32781(a)(l) and may be filed only by an exclusive
representative. However, the petition in LA-UM-723-H was filed jointly by CFA and CSU
and asked PERB to clarify the existing unit description pursuant to PERB Regulation
32781(b)(2). Further, the petition did not otherwise express the desire of the filing parties to
add student assistants to Unit 3.
(

LA-UM-738-H
December 3, 2004
Page 6
that CSU's recognition of UAW should not bar its petition because CSU was aware at the time
that "CFA was seeking to represent ISAs" because CFA sought, via LA-UM-723-H, inclusion
in Unit 3 of "student employees similar to ISAs." However, on the following pages of its
November 8, 2004 letter, CFA contends that the issues raised and decided in that earlier case
are not at issue in the present case.
While the issues in these two cases (LA-UM-723-H and LA-UM-738-H) can be distinguished,
there is still an overlap that CFA's protestations do not overcome. The issue in LA-UM-723-H
was described by the parties as concerning the need for clarification of the inclusion or
exclusion of student employees engaged in instructional activities. 	Though most of the focus
in the case was on CSU's use of the Teaching Associate classification, the issue described was
also applicable to employees then classified in student assistant classifications who performed
teaching, grading and/or tutoring duties. Thus, CFA is incorrect when it argues that the issues
decided in LA-UM-723-H are wholly distinguished from that in the present case.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, as well as those set forth in my October 26, 2004 letter, the unit
modification petition filed by CFA in PERB Case No. LA-UM-738-H is hereby DISMISSED.
Right of Appeal
An appeal of this decision to the Board itself may be made within ten (10) calendar days
following the date of service of this decision. 	(Regulation 32360.) To be timely filed, the
original and five (5) copies of any appeal must be filed with the Board itself at the following
address:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
FAX: (916) 327-7960
A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close of business (5 p.m.)
on the last day set for filing. (Regulations 32135(a) and 32130.) A document is also
considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the close of business on the
last day for filing together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the
requirements of Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original,
together with the required number of copies and proof of service, in the U.S. mail. 	(Regulation
32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
The appeal must state the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale that are appealed
and must state the grounds for the appeal (Regulation 32360(c)). An appeal will not
automatically prevent the Board from proceeding in this case. 	A party seeking a stay of any
( 	(

rLA-UM-738-H
December 3, 2004
Page 7
activity may file such a request with its administrative appeal, and must include all pertinent
facts and justifications for the request (Regulation 32370).
If a timely appeal is filed, any other party may file with the Board an original and five (5)
copies of a response to the appeal within ten (10) calendar days following the date of service of
the appeal (Regulation 32375).
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding and on the regional office. 	A "proof of service" must accompany each copy of a
document served upon a party or filed with the Board itself (see Regulation 32140 for the
required contents and a sample form). The document will be considered properly "served"
when personally delivered or deposited in the first-class mail postage paid and properly
addressed. 	A document filed by facsimile transmission may be concurrently served via
facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding. 	(Regulation 32135(c).)
Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time in which to file an appeal or opposition to an appeal with the
Board itself must be in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A
request for an extension must be filed at least three calendar days before the expiration of the
time required for filing the document. 	The request must indicate good cause for and, if known,
the position of each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof of
service of the request upon each party (Regulation 32132).
Sincerely,
LLes Chisholm
Regional Director
Enclosures
cc: 	Sharyn Abernatha
Sam Strafaci
Margo A. Feinberg
(

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PERB
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8383
Fax:(916)327-6377
October 26, 2004
Bernhard Rohrbacher, Attorney
Rothner, Segall & Greenstone
510 South Marengo Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101-3115
Re: 	Case No. LA-UM-738-H
California State University
Dear Mr. Rohrbacher:
The above-referenced unit modification petition was filed with the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB or Board) on October 19, 2004, by California Faculty Association
(CFA). The petition seeks to add the classification of Instructional Student1den:H\ssistttnt-t<t-
- Faculty of the California State University (CSU). ident Assistant to Unit-3
The petition indicates on its face that it is filed pursuant to PERB Regulation 32781(a)(l).1
That regulation section provides as follows:
(a) A recognized or certified employee organization may file
with the regional office a petition for modification of its units:
(1) To add to the unit unrepresented classifications or positions[.]
In its petition, CFA indicates that the CSU and the United Auto Workers (UAW) reached
agreement in PERB Case No. LA-RR-1099-H on an appropriate unit including the
classification of Instructional Student Assistant, and CSU agreed to recognize UAW as the
exclusive representative of the described new bargaining unit. According to PERB records, the
California Alliance of Academic Student Employees/UAW has been recognized since August
23, 2004, as the exclusive representative of an Academic Student Employees unit.
The UAW petition in LA-RR-1099-H did not list the classification of Instructional Student
Assistant, but the petition did seek, inter alia, recognition in a unit including certain Student
Assistants. 	The subsequent agreement between UAW and CSU, in pertinent part, stated:
The CSU shall create the new classification "Instructional
Student Assistant." . . . A Student Assistant shall be classified as
1 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq. Copies may be purchased from PERB's Publications Coordinator, 1031 18th
Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-4174, and the text is available at www.perb.ca.gov.
( 	(
-----------' 	----------
B-nit-3-------

LA-UM-738-H
October 26, 2004
Page 2
an Instructional Student Assistant in an individual department or
equivalent organizational unit if he/she performs grading, tutoring
or instruction for a majority of his/her work hours during the
duration of the academic term in that individual department or
equivalent organizational unit on a CSU campus.
CFA notes in its petition that the Instructional Student Assistant classification description
specifies that employees in the classification perform teaching, grading or tutoring duties.
Thus, argues CFA, the classification is properly included in Unit 3 as Unit 3 was established to
encompass "all instructional faculty, full-time and part-time, tenured and non-tenured,
including coaches and librarians."
Discussion
CFA's instant petition does not reference two earlier unit modification petitions that are related
to the issue raised here. In March 1991, CSU and CFA filed a joint petition (PERB Case No.
LA-UM-514-H) to exclude students from Unit 3, and PERB subsequently approved
modification of the unit to exclude:
Individuals serving in bargaining unit classifications who are
students and whose employment is solely and exclusively
dependent upon their status as degree seeking graduate students
in the department in which they are employed are involved with
the University primarily as students rather than as employees.
In February 2004, CSU and CFA again filed a joint unit modification petition (PERB Case No.
LA-UM-723-H), seeking clarification of the Order issued in LA-UM-514-H. That petition was
filed subsequent to the filing of UAW's petition in LA-RR-1099-H which, as noted above,
sought, inter alia, inclusion of certain positions then classified as Student Assistants that were
later designated, pursuant to the agreement between UAW and CSU, to be classified instead as
Instructional Student Assistants.
In LA-UM-723-H, the gravamen of CFA's argument was that CSU was interpreting the scope
of the Order in LA-UM-514-H too broadly and thus classifying instructional positions outside
Unit 3 that were and are properly included in the unit. The arguments made by CFA in the
instant petition are consonant with that position. However, CFA's position was not upheld in
that case and CSU's interpretation of the earlier modification of Unit 3 was adopted. 	(Trustees
of the California State University (2004) PERB Order No. Ad-342-H.2)
2 Notice is taken that CFA has filed a request for judicial review of the Board's
decision, pursuant to PERB Regulation 32500.
( 	(

LA-UM-738-H
October 26, 2004
Page 3
Conclusion
The petition in LA-UM-738-H states on its face that it concerns the proposed addition of
unrepresented classifications or positions to Unit 3. 	However, the information provided with
the petition contradicts the assertion that employees in the Instructional Student Assistant
classification are unrepresented. 	Both PERB records and the information provided by CFA
demonstrate that the Instructional Student Assistant classification is not unrepresented, but
rather is included in the UAW-represented unit The petition must be dismissed as improperly
filed on this basis alone. Further, as discussed above, the instant petition seeks to re-litigate
issues raised and decided in PERB Case No. LA-UM-723-H.
In light of the above, CFA is afforded this opportunity to SHOW CAUSE as to why its unit
modification petition in Case No. LA-UM-738-H should not be dismissed. Factual assertions
must be supported by declarations under penalty of perjury by witnesses with personal
knowledge and should indicate that the witness, if called, could competently testify about the
facts asserted. If the facts asserted are reliant on a writing, the writing must be attached to the
declaration and authenticated therein. 	Legal argument and supporting materials must be filed
with the-undersigned.no later than November 8, 2004. Service and proof of service pursuant to
PERB Regulation 32140 are required.
Upon receipt of CFA's argument and factual assertions, or the expiration of the time allowed
for same, the undersigned shall contact each of the parties regarding further case processing
steps, including a deadline for responses to the CFA's submittal, if requested.
Please contact me at the address or telephone number shown above if you have any questions
concerning this matter. 	'
Sincerely,
•
Les Chisholm
Regional Director
cc: 	Sharyn Abernatha
Margo Feinberg
., (
----with-th0-UI1doi;signed-no..later-than1,kwember..&,..20.0..4. Sencice and 	--- 	---------

+2137364801 	T-501 	P.001 	F-066	Dec-02-2004 	11:53am 	From-PERB LOS ANGELES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF ACADEMIC
STUDENT EMPLOYEES/UAW,
Petitioner
Case No.LA-RR-1099-H
CERTIFICATION OF EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
Pursuant to the authority vested in the undersigned by the Public Employment Relations
Board, and in accordance with PERB Regulation 51096, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the
California Alliance of Academic Student Employees/UAW is the exclusive representative of
all employees in the unit set forth below:
Title of Unit: 	Academic Student Employees
Shall INCLUDE: 	Teaching Associate, Instructional Student Assistant, and
Graduate Assistant,
Shall EXCLUDE: 	All other employees, including employees represented by the
California Faculty Association, the Academic Professionals of
California, and/or the California State Employees Association,
and all management, confidential, and supervisory employees.
Signed at Oakland, California
On August 23, 2004
On behalf of the
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Anita I. Martinez
Regional Director
PAGE:001 	R=96*	DEC-0E-E004 10:11AM 	FAX:+2137364901 	ID:PERB
'