Pasadena Area Community College District (PERB A500E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PASADENA AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,
Petitioner,
and
PASADENA CITY COLLEGE FACULTY
ASSOCIATION,
Exclusive Representative.
Case No. LA-DP-460-E
PERB Order No. Ad-500
January 11, 2023
Appearances: Rothner, Segall & Greenstone by Glenn Rothner, Attorney, for
California Federation of Teachers; Law Offices of David Conway by David Conway,
Attorney, for Pasadena City College Faculty Association.
Before Banks, Chair; Shiners, Krantz, and Paulson, Members.
DECISION
KRANTZ, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on an interlocutory appeal of a Board agent’s administrative
determination (AD) concerning a decertification petition (Petition) that California
Federation of Teachers (CFT) filed under the Educational Employment Relations Act
(EERA) seeking to decertify and replace Pasadena City College Faculty Association
(PCCFA) as the exclusive representative of faculty members at Pasadena Area

2
Community College District.1 In the AD, PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC)
concluded that CFT filed sufficient proof of support consisting of both electronically
and physically signed authorization cards. On appeal, PCCFA asserts that PERB
Regulation 32700 bars use of electronic proof of support for decertification, and that
CFT therefore failed to submit valid proof of support sufficient to meet the 30 percent
threshold for a decertification election. We agree and dismiss the Petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The District is a public school employer within the meaning of EERA
section 3540.1, subdivision (k), and a school district within the meaning of PERB
Regulation 32001, subdivision (c). PCCFA and CFT are employee organizations within
the meaning of EERA section 3540.1, subdivision (d) and PERB Regulation 32001,
subdivision (a). PCCFA is the exclusive representative of a bargaining unit consisting
of the District’s full-time and part-time faculty.
I. 	CFT’s Campaign to Collect Electronically Signed Authorization Forms
In the first half of 2022,2 District faculty members hoping to elect CFT as their
exclusive representative in lieu of PCCFA solicited their colleagues to electronically
sign a web-based authorization form containing the following pertinent language:
“I want to join Pasadena City College Faculty Federation
(PCCFF), California Federation of Teachers (CFT),
American Federation of Teachers (AFT), AFL-CIO[3] to have
a voice for better wages, benefits and working conditions.
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. All statutory
references are to the Government Code.
2 All dates refer to 2022, unless otherwise specified.
3 Like the parties, we refer to the petitioning organization as CFT.

3
I authorize [CFT] to represent me as my exclusive
representative with respect to my wages, hours and terms
and conditions of employment in accordance with
applicable law. I understand that this authorization card
may be filed with the Public [Employment] Relations Board
to support holding a recognition election.”
On July 5, CFT filed the Petition, together with electronically signed
authorization forms from hundreds of District faculty members. As of that date, the
District and PCCFA had no collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in effect. Their
most recent CBA had expired on June 30.
II. 	The Board Agent’s Order to Show Cause and CFT’s Response
OGC assigned a Board agent to investigate the Petition and initial proof of
support. On July 7, the Board agent issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC). The OSC
notified all parties that PERB Regulation 32700, subdivision (d) does not allow
electronically signed proof of support from exclusively represented employees, and
afforded CFT an opportunity to show cause, by July 18, why PERB should not dismiss
its Petition.
After receiving the OSC, CFT obtained authorization cards bearing original,
nonelectronic signatures.4 Some—but not all—of the faculty providing these original
signatures had previously signed proof of support using an electronic signature.
On or about July 18, CFT submitted the newly collected authorization cards to
PERB. CFT also filed multiple sworn declarations describing the methods it used to
4 In this decision, “original signatures” refers to ink or “wet” signatures, while
“proof of support” can refer to electronically signed authorization forms, paper
authorization cards, or both, as context demands.

4
obtain the electronically signed authorization forms that it had initially submitted with
the Petition. These declarations stated that after employees provided their electronic
signatures, they received, via e-mail, copies of their electronically signed authorization
forms. The declarations further stated that CFT did not receive any responsive e-mails
from employees disputing that they had authorized CFT to represent them.
III. 	PCCFA’s Motion to Dismiss and CFT’s Response
On August 1, PCCFA moved to dismiss the Petition, asserting two primary
arguments. First, PCCFA argued that CFT had no right to cure the insufficient proof of
support it filed with the Petition. In making this argument, PCCFA assumed the Board
agent had been correct that PERB Regulations do not allow electronically signed proof
of support from exclusively represented employees. PCCFA’s motion also argued that
CFT “evasively hid that it sought decertification of PCCFA, and fraudulently
misrepresented the requests for signed cards to be for ‘reforming PCCFA’ and
‘affiliating with CFT.’”
On August 9, CFT opposed the dismissal motion, arguing that it had a right to
cure its initial proof of support and had not engaged in misrepresentation.
IV. 	The Board Agent’s Administrative Determination
On August 18, the Board agent issued the AD, which included five primary
conclusions. First, the Board agent found that CFT had the right to augment its proof
of support because there was no contract bar in effect. Second, the Board agent
rejected PCCFA’s misrepresentation allegations. Third, the Board agent found that the
number of paper authorization cards CFT submitted, standing alone, did not satisfy
the 30 percent showing of support requirement in PERB Regulation 32770,

5
subdivision (b). Fourth, the Board agent found that the number of electronically signed
authorization forms CFT submitted, standing alone, also was less than 30 percent of
the bargaining unit. Accordingly, the Board agent found that CFT could satisfy the
required showing only by combining paper cards and electronic forms. Finally, the
Board agent reversed the position he had articulated in the OSC—that PERB
Regulations do not allow electronically signed proof of support from exclusively
represented employees. In explaining his change of mind, the Board agent found that
the electronically signed authorization forms satisfied the description in PERB
Regulation 32700, subdivision (d)(5): “Other evidence as determined by the Board,
provided that such evidence is consistent with the principles underlying this
subsection (d).” The Board agent therefore found sufficient proof of support to trigger a
decertification election.
V. 	PCCFA’s Interlocutory Appeal
On September 8, PCCFA filed a motion asking the Board agent to take two
actions. First, PCCFA asked the Board agent to certify an interlocutory appeal to the
Board over whether the AD erred in finding “that electronic, non-original signatures may
be used for proof of support for decertification petitions under PERB Regulation
32700(d)(5).” Second, PCCFA asked the Board agent to stay the decertification election
pending the Board’s determination of the interlocutory appeal. CFT opposed both
requests on September 15. On September 22, the Board agent certified the
interlocutory appeal for Board review but did not address PCCFA’s stay request.5
5 An appeal from an administrative determination does not automatically stay
further proceedings. (PERB Reg. 32370.) Interlocutory appeals are a subset of

6
VI. 	Proceedings While This Appeal Was Pending
The Board conducted a mail ballot election. On November 15, the Board agent
informed the parties that 235 employees voted in favor of PCCFA, 229 voted in favor
of CFT, and 7 voted for no representation. The Board agent further informed the
parties that because none of the choices achieved a majority, PERB would conduct a
runoff election between CFT and PCCFA. The Board agent has not scheduled that
election due to a dispute over which employees have the right to vote in a runoff.
DISCUSSION
When appealing an administrative determination, an appellant must show that
the challenged decision departs from the Board’s precedent or regulations. (City and
County of San Francisco (2022) PERB Order No. Ad-497-M, p. 15.) Here, we reverse
the AD because the Board agent misconstrued the applicable regulation on proof of
support.
For most of PERB’s history, the agency’s regulations have disallowed
electronically signed proof of support. (Regents of the University of California (2018)
PERB Order No. Ad-459-H, p. 4.) As described below, this partially changed on
February 15, 2021, when revisions to PERB Regulation 32700 took effect together
with newly promulgated PERB Regulations 32092 and 32110.
administrative appeals involving controlling issues of law the resolution of which will
materially advance case resolution. (PERB Reg. 32200.) For that reason, “in most
cases it is appropriate for a Board agent certifying an interlocutory appeal to the Board
itself to pause activity in the case pending the Board’s resolution of the issue(s) on
appeal.” (Regents of the University of California (San Francisco) (2023) PERB Order
No. Ad-499-H, p. 8.)

7
PERB Regulation 32092, subdivision (a) permits electronic signatures only where
“expressly” authorized by PERB Regulations. PERB Regulation 32110, subdivision (c)
complements Regulation 32092, stating that a party submitting proof of support “may
rely on electronic signatures only to the extent permitted under section 32700.” These
two new regulations provided context for the Board’s contemporaneous updates to
PERB Regulation 32700, which governs proof of support in representation matters. The
sole part of revised Regulation 32700 that allows electronic signatures is subdivision
(d)(4), which adds an electronic signature option for “employees who are not exclusively
represented by an employee organization.” The plain language of the revised regulation
thus left PERB’s longstanding requirement of original signatures unchanged for
exclusively represented employees who wish to change or decertify their representative
or sever themselves from a represented unit. (Zerger et al., edits., California Public
Sector Labor Relations (2d ed. 2022) § 4.03[2][a][ii] [revisions to PERB Reg. 32700
permit certain proof of support without original signatures, “though not for
decertification and severance petitions”].)
There are several reasons supporting PERB’s decision to accept electronic proof
of support only for petitions to represent unrepresented employees. First, while a
petitioner seeking to represent unrepresented employees is always an employee
organization, a decertification petitioner can be either an employee organization, a
group of employees, or an individual. Required electronic signature procedures,
including record-keeping necessary to prevent fraud and create an adequate audit trail,
constitute critical precautions that an employee organization will likely be more able to
follow, as compared to an individual employee or group of individuals. Electronic proof

8
of support thus makes more sense in cases where it is certain that the petitioner will be
an employee organization.
Second, EERA delegates to PERB the delicate task of balancing employee free
choice with preserving stable employer-employee relations. (Regents of the University
of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 159, 192;
State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (1983) PERB Decision
No. 327-S, p. 5; Pittsburg Unified School District (1978) PERB Order No. Ad-49
(Pittsburg), pp. 4-6.) In exercising this discretion, PERB recognizes that decertification
petitions destabilize employer-employee relations as well as employer efficiency.6 In
part for these reasons, PERB Regulations limit decertification petitions more than
petitions to represent unrepresented employees, provided that represented employees
retain a reasonable opportunity to change their representative or become
unrepresented. (Pittsburg, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-49, pp. 4-6; see also Service
Employees Intern. Union, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1390,
1396 [promoting stable labor relations is a valid rationale for timing and proof of
support rules that disfavor decertification compared to initial certification, but it is
6 We know this to be true from multiple past examples. (See, e.g., City of
Fremont (2013) PERB Order No. IR-57-M, p. 25 [employer stated that it would not
bargain with incumbent union pending outcome of decertification petition, preventing
union from performing its duties as exclusive representative and undermining labor
law’s dual purposes of improving employer-employee relations and increasing
communication with employees].)

9
overly restrictive to allow a decertification petitioner only 30 days to collect proof of
support from half the unit].)7
While the February 2021 regulatory changes allowed electronic signatures for
unrepresented employees, the changes did not impose any new limit on represented
employees’ ability to decertify or change representatives. Rather, represented
employees retain the same rights to do so that they have had since EERA’s
enactment. By allowing electronic signatures only in the limited instance of petitions to
represent unrepresented employees, PERB declined to liberalize decertification
processes, thereby rejecting a potentially destabilizing change. Taking administrative
notice of EERA petitions filed before and after the regulatory change, statistics reveal
no impact on the rate of decertification activity.8 In fact, these statistics also show no
impact on the rate of petitions to represent unrepresented employees, despite the
potential liberalizing effect of accepting electronic signatures from unrepresented
employees.9 Thus, historical rates of both types of petitions, and by extension the ratio
between them, remain unchanged. However, the Board may take future action if
evidence arises that decertification petitions have become overly difficult.
7 PERB Regulation 32700, subdivision (b) gives parties a full year to collect
proof of support, a standard that is substantially more liberal than the standard at
issue in Service Employees Intern. Union, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, supra, 89
Cal.App.4th 1390.
8 PERB received an annual average of 8 decertification petitions in the decade
prior to 2021 and 17 such petitions in the 23 months since the regulatory change.
9 PERB received an annual average of 17 petitions to represent unrepresented
employees in the decade prior to 2021 and 33 such petitions in the 23 months since
the regulatory change.

10
CFT concedes that PERB Regulation 32700, subdivision (d)(4) applies only to
proof of support from unrepresented employees. Nevertheless, CFT argues that the
Board agent correctly accepted the electronic signatures under subdivision (d)(5), which
allows “[o]ther evidence as determined by the Board, provided that such evidence is
consistent with the principles underlying this subsection (d).” CFT submitted evidence
that it met subdivision (d)(4)’s procedural requirements that apply to electronic
signatures by unrepresented employees, and on that basis, argued that its approach
was “consistent with the principles” underlying subdivision (d).
CFT’s reading of PERB Regulation 32700 violates fundamental interpretive
principles. A cardinal rule of statutory construction is that we must give “meaning to
every word of the statute, if possible, [to] avoid a construction that makes any word
surplusage.”10 (Santa Clara Valley Water District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2349-M,
p. 16.) By allowing electronic proof of support for decertification under subdivision
(d)(5), CFT’s interpretation renders ineffective subdivision (d)(4)’s limitation of
electronic signatures to “employees who are not exclusively represented by an
employee organization.”
We also must read our regulations as a whole so that every part is harmonized.
(County of Santa Clara (2015) PERB Decision No. 2431-M, p. 16.) PERB Regulation
32092, subdivision (a) permits electronic signatures only where “expressly” authorized.
PERB Regulation 32110, subdivision (c) states that a party submitting proof of support
“may rely on electronic signatures only to the extent permitted under section 32700.”
10 The same interpretive principles apply to statutes and regulations.
(Grossmont Union High School District (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-466, p. 3.)

11
CFT’s interpretation ignores the clear import of these provisions by allowing electronic
signatures in support of a decertification petition even though such proof of support is
not “expressly” authorized by PERB Regulation 32700.
Finally, we cannot interpret a regulation in a manner that defeats its apparent
purpose. In Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee & California
Superior Courts Region 2 (2020) PERB Decision No. 2701-I, we declined to interpret a
statute so as to create a “loophole foreclosing [the union’s] ability to negotiate wage
increases to offset increased pension contributions” because such an interpretation “is
incongruous with the Legislature’s purpose in enacting a statutory scheme granting
court interpreters the right to engage in collective bargaining over ‘wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment.’” (Id. at p. 36.) Similarly here, CFT asks us
to create a loophole allowing electronic proof of support for a decertification petition
despite PERB’s express intent to limit electronic proof of support to “employees who are
not exclusively represented by an employee organization.” This would defeat the
purpose of the regulatory changes that became effective in February 2021.
The Board agent was therefore correct in his initial interpretation that PERB
Regulations disallow electronically signed proof of support from exclusively
represented employees. The Board agent was incorrect when he later reversed this
interpretation and accepted CFT’s electronic proof of support.11 Without the
11 Regulation 32700 governs proof of support for all petitions filed with PERB,
but it does not govern petitions filed with an employer under the Meyers-Milias-Brown
Act, section 3500 et. seq. (MMBA), or other acts permitting an employer to establish
local rules regarding representation. The MMBA grants employers certain discretion in
establishing rules that balance employee rights and stable labor relations. (City of

12
electronically signed authorization forms, CFT’s proof of support did not reach the 30
percent threshold necessary for an election. The Petition accordingly must be
dismissed.
We clarify, however, that so long as there is no contract bar in effect, EERA
allows a decertification petitioner the right to: (a) augment the proof of support it filed
in conjunction with a pending petition; or (b) file a new petition if its initial petition was
withdrawn or dismissed for insufficient proof of support. (American Indian Model
Schools (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-468, pp. 1-2 [where petitioner claimed PERB
denied it the opportunity to cure its proof of support, issue was moot because
petitioner simply filed a new petition to the same effect].) Indeed, in Pittsburg, supra,
PERB Order No. Ad-49, we explained the governing principles. First, we noted that
PERB Regulations are silent on curing proof of support for decertification petitions,
because that opportunity ceases whenever a new contract bar takes effect, meaning
PERB cannot issue a regulation guaranteeing a set period to cure in all cases. (Id. at
p. 3.) In contrast, when there is no contract bar in effect (including for all petitions to
represent unrepresented employees and for decertification and severance petitions
when the contract bar has lapsed), then the opportunity to cure exists at the very least
because the petitioner can file a new petition. (Id. at p. 4.) Accordingly, so long as
there is no contract bar in effect, CFT has the right to file a decertification petition
supported by proof of support bearing original signatures to meet the required 30
percent threshold for a decertification election.
Long Beach (2021) PERB Decision No. 2771-M, p. 13.) We express no opinion as to
what rules on electronic proof of support such an employer may reasonably adopt.

13
ORDER
The Decertification Petition filed by California Federation of Teachers on
July 5, 2022, is DISMISSED for insufficient proof of support.
Chair Banks and Members Shiners and Paulson joined in this Decision.