St. HOPE Public Schools (PERB A511E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ST. HOPE PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Employer,
and
A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES,
Petitioner,
and
SACRAMENTO CITY TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION, CTA/NEA,
Exclusive Representative.
Case No. SA-DP-278-E
PERB Order No. Ad-511
March 11, 2024
Appearance: Young, Minney & Corr by Roger Scott, Attorney, for St. HOPE Public
Schools.
Before Krantz, Paulson, and Nazarian, Members.
DECISION
KRANTZ, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on an appeal by St. HOPE Public Schools (SHPS) from the attached
administrative determination (AD) that PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC)
issued on December 29, 2023. At issue is a decertification petition (Petition) that a
group of SHPS teachers filed to decertify Sacramento City Teachers Association
(SCTA) as the exclusive representative of their bargaining unit. OGC stayed the
Petition in September 2021 based on two unfair practice charges SCTA filed in 2020
and a third charge SCTA filed in July 2021, each alleging conduct tending to influence

2
employee free choice.1 No party appealed OGC’s 2021 stay order, and it remains in
effect, as the parties are still litigating the blocking charge SCTA filed in July 2021.2
In October 2023, SCTA filed an additional unfair practice charge claiming that
an alleged SHPS agent played one or more roles in originating, supporting, pursuing,
and/or leading the Petition.3 OGC, in the AD it issued in December 2023, found that
the 2023 blocking charge is a further, independent basis to stay processing the
Petition. SHPS timely appealed.
We have reviewed the record and the arguments SHPS raised on appeal. For
the reasons explained below, we affirm the AD and adopt it as a decision of the Board
itself, subject to and as amended by the following decision, which expands on the
reasons for the stay and provides clarified instructions for further case processing.4
1 We refer to such charges as “blocking charges,” meaning they allege conduct
likely to affect employee free choice and therefore allow the charging party to request
that PERB stay representation processes pending unfair practice proceedings.
2 We refer to that charge, Case No. SA-CE-3046-E, as the “2021 blocking
charge.” It alleges that SHPS unlawfully influenced employee free choice by providing
teachers with $2,000 bonuses. SCTA has withdrawn the two blocking charges it filed
in 2020, which involved distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.
3 We refer to that charge, Case No. SA-CE-3145-E, as “the 2023 blocking
charge.”
4 Although the Petition would remain stayed based on the 2021 blocking charge
irrespective of the outcome of this appeal, that circumstance does not render this
appeal moot. There are multiple reasons why it is important for the parties and OGC to
know whether one charge or two charges are currently blocking the Petition. For
instance, the 2021 blocking charge and the 2023 blocking charge are set for separate
formal hearings, and it is unknown which will resolve first. If the 2021 blocking charge
is the first to resolve, it may be significant whether the 2023 blocking charge also
forms a basis for the stay.

3
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In St. HOPE Public Schools (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-472, the Board certified
SCTA as the exclusive representative of a unit of SHPS classroom teachers, including
long-term substitutes but excluding day-to-day substitutes. (Id. at p. 11.) While the
record does not detail the full nature and extent of collective bargaining negotiations
by SHPS and SCTA following certification, as of the time SHPS filed this appeal, the
parties had not yet reached a first contract.
In June 2021, a group of individuals (Petitioner) filed the Petition pursuant to
the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA).5 As noted above, SCTA asked
OGC to stay the Petition based on blocking charges. OGC solicited responses from
Petitioner and SHPS. Only SHPS responded, opposing the stay request. OGC then
issued a stay order. No party appealed that order, and we therefore express no
opinion on its analysis or conclusions.
In the fall of 2021, PERB’s Division of Administrative Law (DAL) assigned two
administrative law judges (ALJs) to hear groups of unfair practice charges between
the parties, which included the three blocking charges that were pending at that time
as well as five cross-charges that SHPS had filed against SCTA. In December 2021,
based on a joint request from SHPS and SCTA, DAL placed in abeyance all pending
charges and cross-charges between the parties, to allow time for mediation.
On May 26, 2022, SCTA and SHPS signed a settlement that was conditional on
approval by the SHPS Board of Directors, as well as by “OGC and/or PERB.” While
5 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. All further statutory
references are to the Government Code.

4
those conditions never fully materialized (as explained below), and the conditional
settlement accordingly never became final, both parties have placed into the record
the terms the settlement would have imposed had it become effective. One term was
that SCTA and SHPS would withdraw their charges against one another. Another term
stated that “SCTA’s status as the exclusive representative [of] its bargaining unit shall
be extended, as if the initial year after lawful recognition has not expired, for twelve
(12) months from the latter of the date the PERB Office of the General Counsel (OGC)
and/or PERB approve such an extension, or August 15, 2022.”
By e-mail dated June 27, 2023, an attorney for SHPS notified PERB that the
SHPS Board of Directors had approved the settlement. It is unclear why 13 months
elapsed between the parties’ conditional settlement and the date of this e-mail.
On July 7, 2023, OGC issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) as to why it
should not honor the conditional settlement by dismissing the Petition, given that the
settlement purported to extend the initial certification bar “as if the initial year after
lawful recognition has not expired” until 12 months following the later of August 15,
2022 or the date OGC and/or PERB approved the settlement.6
6 EERA requires PERB to dismiss a representation petition when “[t]he public
school employer has, within the previous 12 months, lawfully recognized an employee
organization other than the petitioner as the exclusive representative of any
employees included in the unit described in the petition.” (EERA, § 3544.7,
subd. (b)(2).) This 12-month period is commonly known as the “certification bar” or the
“recognition bar.” Its purpose is to give the new exclusive representative “breathing
room” to bargain a first contract. (Gompers Preparatory Academy (2020) PERB Order
No. Ad-481, p. 7, fn. 5 (Gompers).) PERB commonly extends the bar as a remedy for
unlawful conduct impacting the union’s strength and/or ability to bargain a contract.
(See, e.g., Alliance Judy Ivey Burton Technology Academy High School et al. (2022)
PERB Decision No. 2809, p. 30.)

5
On July 28, 2023, SHPS responded to the OSC, asking OGC to either:
(1) interpret the settlement to mean that the Petition should remain stayed until
August 14, 2024, and to process the Petition at that point; or (2) invalidate the
settlement and allow the parties to resume litigating the blocking charges and cross-
charges.
On August 9, 2023, Petitioner asked for an extension of time to respond to the
OSC because the teacher who had been Petitioner’s lead representative no longer
worked at SHPS, and Petitioner’s new lead representative, Adrianne Hall, needed time
to review the matter. On this basis, OGC granted Petitioner additional time to respond.
Hall then wrote OGC on August 25, 2023, asking that “the Decertification Petition
remain in place for twelve additional months so the SCTA and SHPS can continue
bargaining,” which Petitioner argued was the purpose and meaning of the conditional
settlement.
On September 1, 2023, SCTA responded to the OSC. SCTA argued that if
OGC approved the settlement, then OGC must dismiss the Petition, because
Petitioner filed it during a period in which the initial recognition bar was in effect by
operation of the settlement.
On September 7, 2023, OGC requested information about Hall’s work as Chief
Operating Officer of an entity known as St. HOPE Academy (SHA), in addition to any
work as a bargaining unit teacher. Hall and SHPS both responded with certain
information.
On October 5, 2023, SCTA filed the 2023 blocking charge, alleging, among
other things, that Hall is not a unit employee and is an SHPS agent whose

6
involvement tainted the Petition and served as a further basis for OGC to block and/or
dismiss the Petition. Eight days later, SHPS and Hall filed letters urging that OGC not
stay the Petition based on the 2023 blocking charge, and on October 20, 2023, SHPS
responded to the merits of the charge.
On October 27, 2023, OGC issued a complaint based on the 2023 blocking
charge. The complaint includes the following allegations, among others: (1) SHA is a
non-profit that is closely related to SHPS and an agent thereof; (2) SHPS and SHA
have a joint-employer and/or single-employer relationship with unit employees; (3) Hall
is an agent of SHPS; (4) Hall is not a unit employee; (5) SHPS engaged in bad faith
conduct by adding Hall to the periodic lists of purported unit employees that SHPS
provides SCTA, only after Hall’s involvement in the Petition, and without disclosing her
other role(s); (6) SHPS and Hall interfered with protected rights via Hall’s provision of
unlawful support to the decertification effort; and (7) through the same conduct, SHPS
violated EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d) and the Prohibition against Public
Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership (PEDD; § 3550 et seq.).7
On December 18, 2023, SCTA wrote OGC, stating that it had “reluctantly
concluded that St. Hope Public School’s new, cynical, and inaccurate interpretation of
the May 2022 settlement agreement between SCTA and St. Hope (collectively, Parties),
coupled with the unique procedural posture of that agreement, leave the Parties without
a legally enforceable settlement agreement.” SCTA therefore withdrew its prior request
7 EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d) forbids, among other things, interfering
with the administration of an employee organization by fomenting internal dissent.
(City of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2747-M, p. 44.) PEDD section 3550
prohibits an employer from deterring or discouraging employees from, among other
things, “becoming or remaining members of an employee organization.”

7
that OGC enforce the settlement by dismissing the Petition and instead concurred with
the alternative position SHPS had taken, in which it asked OGC to invalidate the
settlement and allow the parties to resume litigating the various pending charges.
In the attached AD, OGC adopted the above-described overlap in positions
between SHPS and SCTA, thereby rejecting the settlement agreement and freeing the
parties to litigate all pending charges between them. The AD also found cause to add
the 2023 blocking charge as a further basis for the existing stay order.
The 2021 blocking charge, together with five cross-charges filed by SHPS, are
set for a consolidated formal hearing in April 2024. The 2023 blocking charge is set for
a formal hearing the same month in front of a different ALJ.8
SHPS timely appealed OGC’s conclusion that the 2023 blocking charge is a
further basis for staying the Petition. In contrast, both parties accede to OGC’s
decision not to approve the conditional settlement—the final condition that would have
made it operative—given the parties’ disagreement about its meaning. We thus
express no opinion on the settlement’s potential meaning had it taken effect, or
whether OGC should have enforced it.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32752 provides, in pertinent part:
“The Board may stay an election pending the resolution of
an unfair practice charge relating to the voting unit upon an
investigation and a finding that alleged unlawful conduct
8 SCTA filed additional blocking charges in December 2023 and February 2024.
Those charges, designated as Case Nos. SA-CE-3156-E and SA-CE-3164-E, are
currently under investigation before OGC. We do not discuss them further, as it is
OGC’s role to decide initially whether to issue complaints and whether either of the
recent charges is a further, independent basis to stay processing the Petition.

8
would so affect the election process as to prevent the
employees from exercising free choice.”9
The purpose of this regulation is to help PERB insulate elections from unfair practices
that may influence the outcome. (Gompers, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-481, p. 3;
Imagine Schools at Imperial Valley (2016) PERB Order No. Ad-431, p. 9.)
I. 	Stay Analysis
In deciding whether to stay an election, the question is whether the alleged
unfair practices, if proven, would be likely to affect employee free choice. (PERB
Reg. 32752; Gompers, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-481, p. 3.) When a union argues
that a decertification election should be stayed because unfair practices may have
eroded employee support for the union, a stay is warranted if the conduct alleged is
“of such character and seriousness that, if it were proven to have occurred, it would be
reasonable to infer that it would contribute to employee dissatisfaction and hence
prevent a fair election.” (Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2015) PERB
Order No. Ad-428, p. 9.) Notably, if unfair practices are alleged during first contract
negotiations after recognition or certification (or following a successorship), a lower
bar applies in ascertaining the potential for deleterious effects on employee support for
the emerging union, because law-breaking in such a timeframe is especially likely to
leave employees with an unlawfully jaundiced view on the benefits of having an
exclusive representative. (Gompers, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-481, pp. 5-7.)
SHPS argues that the 2023 blocking charge is not a valid basis for a stay,
absent more evidence that Hall was an SHPS agent who took an active role with
9 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.

9
respect to the Petition. This argument fails for multiple independent reasons. First, in
the current procedural posture, we must assume SCTA will prove the complaint’s
allegations—the same assumption OGC was required to make in deciding on the stay
request. (Gompers, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-481, p. 4.) Second, SHPS fails to
acknowledge that our inquiry on appeal is whether OGC abused its discretion. (Ibid.)
Third, SHPS also does not acknowledge the lower bar for a stay during first contract
negotiations. (Id. at pp. 5-7.)
Moreover, SHPS disregards the varied means by which the complaint’s multiple
claims may establish a tendency to influence employee free choice. For instance,
SHPS focuses on the few private sector interference decisions the AD cited, even
though the complaint includes multiple theories beyond interference (see ante at
p. 6).10 The appeal similarly ignores certain factual allegations and their potential to
establish one or more of the complaint’s claims, including: (1) the fact that, since at
10 Although California public sector labor relations precedent frequently protects
employee and union rights to a greater degree than does federal precedent governing
private sector labor relations, PERB considers federal precedent for its potential
persuasive value. (Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (Wagner et al.) (2021)
PERB Decision No. 2782-M, p. 9, fn. 10; City of Santa Monica (2020) PERB Decision
No. 2635a-M, p. 47, fn. 16; City of Commerce (2018) PERB Decision No. 2602-M,
pp. 9-11; see also Social Workers’ Union, Local 535 v. Alameda County Welfare Dept.
(1974) 11 Cal.3d 382, 391 [when interpreting California public sector labor relations
laws, federal precedent is a “useful starting point,” but it does “not necessarily
establish the limits of California public employees’ representational rights”]; County of
San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2761-M, pp. 24, 33, 45-48 & fn. 19
[considering private sector labor law precedent for its persuasive value while noting
certain differences in California public sector labor law precedent]; City of Bellflower
(2020) PERB Order No. Ad-480-M, p. 11 [both “statutory differences and distinct
principles relevant to agencies serving the public have frequently led the Board to craft
sui generis precedent”].)

10
least August 9, 2023, Hall has served as Petitioner’s sole designated representative;
and (2) the claim that SHPS began placing Hall on the unit employee list for the first
time in July 2021 (despite Hall’s own assertion that she has been employed as a
part-time teacher at SHPS since March 2020), thereby affording her a role in the
decertification debate and in eventually becoming Petitioner’s representative. Based
on the AD and these further considerations, we reject SHPS’s appeal.
II. 	Applicable Standards After Resolution of Blocking Charges
Once PERB has issued a final order regarding the blocking charges supporting
a stay, the question becomes whether fair representation proceedings can resume. If
the charging party did not establish an unfair practice, and there are no other pending
allegations of unfair practices warranting a stay, fair representation proceedings can
go forward.
In contrast, if the charging party prevailed in its charges in whole or in part, and
there are no other pending allegations of unfair practices warranting a stay, PERB
must assess whether to proceed with the pending petition or dismiss it. Normally,
there are three potential bases for dismissal: (1) the proven conduct materially tainted
solicitation of employee support or employees’ decision to sign the petition, such that
there is a legitimate question whether the petition would have reached the requisite
threshold absent unfair practices; (2) the conduct occurred while an emerging union
was negotiating for a first contract after recognition, certification, or successorship,
thereby warranting retroactive extension of the certification or recognition bar;11 or
11 Because it is particularly difficult to restore a newly recognized or certified
union’s standing with its members after early unlawful conduct (see, e.g., Gompers,
supra, PERB Order No. Ad-481, pp. 5-7; Small v. Avanti Health Systems, LLC (9th Cir.

11
(3) the conduct has a continuing prospective tendency to harm employee free choice
that PERB’s remedies are unlikely to fully address, even in conjunction with the
passage of time and any other relevant factors. (Compare City of Long Beach (2021)
PERB Decision No, 2771-M, pp. 17-19 [Board rejected most claims alleged in blocking
charges and found that the limited proven unfair practices would not prevent a fair
election from going forward given the passage of time and PERB’s remedies] with
Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-470, p. 6 &
adopting administrative determination at p. 4 [unfair practices shown required OGC to
dismiss decertification petition after resolution of blocking charges].)
2011) 661 F.3d 1180, 1191-1193), absent unusual circumstances it is proper to
extend the recognition bar or certification bar and dismiss the petition altogether based
on proven unfair practices during first contract negotiations.
Accordingly, we provide the following clarified order covering proceedings once
all blocking charges are resolved.
ORDER
The administrative determination dated December 29, 2023, in Case
No. SA-DP-278-E is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to both that administrative determination
and the administrative determination dated September 15, 2021, case processing of
the decertification petition (Petition) in this matter remains stayed pending final orders
resolving the claims alleged in the operative complaints in Case Nos. SA-CE-3046-E
and SA-CE-3145-E.12 At that point, consistent with this decision, the Office of the
General Counsel (OGC) shall proceed as follows.
12 Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32147, subdivision (b)(1)(B), every PERB
division must expedite Case Nos. SA-CE-3046-E and SA-CE-3145-E at each stage.

12
Moreover, under PERB Regulation 32147, subdivision (b)(1)(A), every PERB division
must expedite this case as soon as the stay ends. Finally, PERB Regulation 32147,
subdivision (c)(2) requires all parties to prominently display the words “EXPEDITED
CASE” on the first page of every document filed in any of the three cases.
A. 	If Sacramento City Teachers Association (SCTA) fails to establish an
unfair practice in either Case No. SA-CE-3046-E or Case No. SA-CE-3145-E, and
there are no pending allegations of unfair practices warranting a stay, then OGC shall
process the Petition.
B. 	If SCTA prevails in whole or in part in either Case No. SA-CE-3046-E or
Case No. SA-CE-3145-E, then OGC shall dismiss the Petition if the proven conduct:
(1) materially tainted solicitation of employee support or employees’ decision to sign
the Petition, such that there is a legitimate question whether the Petition would have
reached the requisite threshold absent unfair practices; (2) warrants retroactive
extension of the certification bar based on SCTA’s status as an emerging union
negotiating for a first contract; or (3) has a continuing prospective tendency to harm
employee free choice that PERB’s remedies are unlikely to fully address, even in
conjunction with the passage of time and any other relevant factors. If none of these
three circumstances are present, and there are no pending allegations of unfair
practices warranting a stay, OGC shall process the Petition after PERB’s remedies are
fully in place and enough time has elapsed such that fair proceedings can go forward.
Members Paulson and Nazarian joined in this Decision.

1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ST. HOPE PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Employer,
A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES,
Petitioners,
and
SACRAMENTO CITY TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION, CTA/NEA,
Exclusive Representative.
REPRESENTATION
CASE NO. SA-DP-278-E
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
December 29, 2023
Appearances: Adrianne Hall for a Group of Employees; Roger L. Scott, Attorney, for
St. HOPE Public Schools; Jacob Rukeyser, Attorney, for Sacramento City Teachers
Association.
Before Brendan P. White, Senior Regional Attorney
This matter is before the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) of the Public
Employment Board (PERB or Board) for an administrative determination of two issues
concerning the above-referenced decertification petition: (1) whether the petition
should be dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement between St. HOPE Public
Schools (St. HOPE or employer) and Sacramento City Teachers Association (SCTA or
Union), the exclusive representative of St. HOPE’s teachers, that resolved certain
unfair practice charges, and (2) whether any decertification election should be stayed
for a second time pending resolution of PERB Unfair Practice Charge (UPC) No. SA-
CE-3145-E, which SCTA filed against St. HOPE on October 5, 2023.
For the following reasons, it is determined that the petition should not be

2
dismissed at this time, but that further processing should be stayed pending resolution
of UPC No. SA-CE-3145-E and any other blocking charges. Therefore, SCTA’s
request to stay the petition is GRANTED.1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petition for Recognition
St. HOPE has operated a public charter school system since 2003. It enrolls
approximately 2,000 students in its elementary school (PS7 Elementary School), two
middle schools (Oak Park Prep and PS7 Middle School), and high school
(Sacramento Charter High School). In 2017, St. HOPE’s approximately 96 regular
classroom teachers began organizing with SCTA and their efforts culminated in the
filing of a request for recognition with PERB on April 28, 2017. On December 6, 2018,
in St. Hope Public Schools (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-472, the Board certified SCTA
as the exclusive representative for the certificated bargaining unit at St. HOPE. Since
that time, the parties have engaged in negotiations but thus far failed to reach a first
contract.
Petition for Decertification and First Round of Blocking Charges
On June 25, 2021, a group of employees filed the underlying decertification
petition. However, further processing of the petition was stayed pursuant to a
September 15, 2021 administrative determination (AD) in which OGC concluded that
the allegations contained in various unfair practice charges would, if proven, “so affect
the election process as to prevent the employees from exercising free choice.” (PERB
1 All further dates occur in 2023 unless otherwise noted.

3
Reg. 32752.) Among the various allegations, SCTA claimed in UPC No. SA-CE-3046-
E, that St. HOPE awarded $2,000 bonuses to unit employees in March 2020, i.e., a
few months before the filing of the decertification petition, without first providing SCTA
with notice and an opportunity to bargain. In its answer to the resulting PERB
complaint, St. HOPE admitted that it awarded the bonuses without bargaining, but
denied that such conduct was unlawful under the circumstances. In light of this and
other allegations, OGC determined that it could not “conduct an election [because]
there is a likelihood that alleged unlawful conduct by St. HOPE has affected voter
choice.”2
St. HOPE and SCTA’s Settlement Agreement
Rather than proceed to formal hearings on the underlying blocking charges, St.
HOPE and SCTA engaged in settlement discussions with the assistance of a PERB
Administrative Law Judge. Those discussions resulted in a May 22, 2022 settlement
agreement, which purported to resolve all then-pending charges in exchange for the
following:
“1. Extension of Bar. The Parties agree that is just and proper
under the circumstances that SCTA’s status as the exclusive
representative [of] its bargaining unit shall be extended, as if the
initial year after lawful recognition has not expired, for twelve (12)
months from the latter of the date [OGC] and/or PERB approve
such an extension, or August 15, 2022.”
Additionally, the settlement agreement was expressly “conditioned on the
2 The September 2021 AD also considered two other charges, SA-CE-3007-E,
SA-CE-3024-E, both of which SCTA subsequently withdrew on December 18.

4
approval, by [OGC] and/or PERB, of the Parties’ agreement to extend the recognition
year,” and the approval of St. HOPE’s Board of Directors. More than a year later, on
June 27, St. HOPE notified PERB that it had approved the settlement agreement.
Order to Show Cause (OSC)
On July 7, the undersigned issued the now pending OSC, in which OGC
“preliminarily determined to honor and give effect to the settlement agreement.” In
sum, the OSC concluded that the petition was subject to dismissal under EERA
section 3544.7p(b)(2) because it was filed during, and therefore barred by, the
retroactively extended certification year.3 Thus, OGC gave the petitioning employees
an “opportunity to show cause why the decertification petition should not be dismissed
as barred by the settlement agreement’s extension of the certification year.”
On July 28, St. HOPE, asserting it was a “real party in interest,” filed its
opposition to the OSC, and stated:
“the intent of the Settlement Agreement was to extend the
certification bar so that the Decertification Petition on file would
be tolled for approximately one (1) year, delaying the election
requested by the employees and precluding the filing of any
further petitions during that time period. In the settlement, the
parties did not agree to the dismissal of the properly and timely
filed Decertification Petition at issue. If the parties had desired
the dismissal of the previously filed Decertification Petition, the
Settlement Agreement would have stated such, rather than
leaving such a critical issue open to the interpretation of PERB.
The parties to the Settlement Agreement intended only to
3 EERA section 3544.7(b)(2) requires dismissal of a petition if “[t]he public
school employer has, within the previous 12 months, lawfully recognized an employee
organization….”

5
stipulate to the continued stay of the Decertification Petition (as
previously determined by PERB).”
Around this point in time, the original employee-representative that filed the
decertification petition, Patricia Burks, notified OGC that she was no longer employed
by St. HOPE, and that she wished to find another bargaining unit member to assume
her duties as proponent of the decertification effort. OGC subsequently granted Burks
an extension of time to permit a new unit employee to act as petitioner’s
representative. On August 9, Adrianne Hall, a “teacher at Sacramento High School
who previously signed the decertification petition,” took on that role. Hall, whose
disputed employment at St. HOPE will be more fully discussed below, filed an
opposition to the OSC on August 25, for reasons largely identical to those offered by
St. HOPE.
On September 1, SCTA filed its response to the OSC, urging OGC to dismiss
the petition based on the settlement agreement’s retroactive extension of the
certification bar. The undersigned then took the matter under submission.
Hall’s Alleged Role at St. HOPE Academy
On September 7, after having received information that she might be employed
in a management position at St. HOPE, OGC requested more information from Hall to
clarify her employment status. On September 11, Hall filed a sworn declaration in
which she stated that, in addition to working as a teacher for one partial day per week,
she was also the full-time Chief Operating Officer (COO) for St. HOPE Academy, a
position she has held since 2017.4 According to Hall, St. HOPE Academy provides
4 The declaration was erroneously dated August 25.

6
“back-office operational services” for St. HOPE, including payroll, recruitment and
hiring, and so-called “human capital operations.” Hall averred that she did “not have a
relationship with [St. HOPE] in [her] current role as COO for St. HOPE Academy.”
According to a September 12 declaration from St. HOPE’s Director of
Operations, Elisha Ferguson Parsons, St. HOPE pays St. HOPE Academy
approximately $1.1 million a year for “contracted back office operational support
services.” The “Statement of Work” between St. HOPE and St. HOPE Academy
defines the scope of the services to include a variety of administrative and
employment-related tasks, including payroll, legal compliance, recruitment, hiring,
salary adjustments, and the responsibility to provide “the St. HOPE culture on-
boarding to introduce staff to the St. HOPE history.” Parsons declared that Hall “does
not provide any services to [St. HOPE] as an employee of [St. Hope Academy].”
On October 5, SCTA filed an unfair practice charge against St. HOPE, PERB
UPC No. SA-CE-3145-E, in which it alleged that, by virtue of her role as Chief
Operating Officer of St. HOPE Academy, Hall is not a bargaining unit teacher but an
agent of St. HOPE. The charge also alleges that St. HOPE included Hall on its roster
of bargaining unit employees only after she signed the decertification petition, and that
through her it unlawfully participated in the campaign to decertify SCTA as the
exclusive representative of certificated employees. SCTA requested that OGC stay
further processing of the decertification petition in light of these allegations.
The same day, OGC notified the parties of SCTA’s request. On October 13,
Hall and St. HOPE filed separate oppositions. Hall asserted that the petition had
already been blocked and the Union had “plenty of time” to show its commitment to

7
the teachers. St. HOPE asserted that SCTA failed to provide sufficient detail to
support its allegations, and that the petition had already been stayed.
On October 27, OGC issued a complaint alleging, inter alia, that Hall’s dual
roles as COO of St. HOPE Academy and proponent of the decertification effort
constituted unlawful employer interference with protected employee rights and a
violation of the Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union
Membership (PEDD).5
Subsequent Events
On December 18, SCTA filed a further response to the OSC, withdrawing its
prior response and urging OGC to set aside the settlement agreement in light of the
parties’ disagreements as to its meaning and effect on the underlying decertification
petition. Additionally, PERB’s Division of Administrative Law has resumed processing
UPC No. SA-CE-3046-E (alleging that St. HOPE awarded $2,000 bonuses to unit
employees shortly before the filing of the petition), and a formal hearing is scheduled
to occur in 2024.
DISCUSSION
As explained above, the OSC gave the petitioning employees an “opportunity to
show cause why the decertification petition should not be dismissed as barred by the
settlement agreement’s extension of the certification year.” Additionally, the charge
filed by SCTA on October 5 (UPC No. SA-CE-3145-E) asserts that the petition should
be blocked because of Hall’s status as COO of St. HOPE Academy and proponent of
5 PEDD is codified at Government Code section 3550 et seq.

8
the decertification effort. In light of the peculiar procedural posture of this case and
considering the oppositions filed by Petitioners and St. HOPE on October 13, OGC
has determined for the following reasons that the petition should not be dismissed at
this time, but instead must be blocked pending the resolution of UPC No. SA-CE-
3145-E.6
If Hall is an agent of St. HOPE as SCTA alleges in the October 5 blocking
charge, then Hall should have had no role whatsoever in the decertification effort. The
Board has interpreted EERA section 3543.5(d) as imposing “an unqualified
requirement of strict neutrality” on public school employers during a decertification
campaign. (See, e.g., Clovis Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 389.)
Hall’s alleged dual roles as high-level manager and leader of the decertification effort
would constitute a violation of St. HOPE’s duty of strict neutrality. And should the
evidence establish as much, the petition would be subject to dismissal regardless of
the meaning of any prior agreement between the parties, at least absent an affirmative
showing that this unfair conduct could not affect employee choice or otherwise taint
the election process. (Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2018) PERB Order
No. Ad-470, p. 1.)
To safeguard the right of employees to participate in employee organizations of
their own choice, PERB must investigate these allegations and determine their
veracity. As such, it is not possible to dismiss the petition absent a complete
6 Because processing of the petition must be stayed for the time being, OGC
need not, and does not, determine at this time whether the parties’ settlement
agreement requires dismissal of the petition. Any unresolved charges identified in the
September 21, 2021 AD, including SA-CE-3046-E, remain pending and continue to
block the petition.

9
investigation of the charge, which may include a formal hearing to determine the
nature of Hall’s employment and role in the decertification effort.
PERB Regulation 32752, “Stay of Election” provides: “The Board may stay an
election pending the resolution of an unfair practice charge relating to the voting unit
upon an investigation and a finding that alleged unlawful conduct would so affect the
election process as to prevent the employees from exercising free choice….”
In “determining whether an election stay is warranted, PERB does not resolve
factual disputes [but rather] assumes that the essential facts alleged in the charge are
true.” (Consolidated Irrigation District (2023) PERB Decision No. Ad-504-M, p. 5
(Consolidated), citing Children of Promise (2015) PERB Order No. Ad-428.) Thus,
while St. HOPE denies the allegations of the blocking charge and contends that Hall is
merely a teacher so far as it is concerned, it is not OGC’s role at this stage to weigh
the evidence or decide conflicting issues of fact. Rather, “the only relevant issue is
whether the employer’s conduct, as alleged in the complaint, will so taint the election
process as to interfere with employee free choice.” (Id. at p. 7.) Therefore, the
question here is whether Hall’s active participation in the decertification campaign
while serving as a putative agent of St. HOPE could interfere with employee free
choice. If there is good cause to believe such conduct would undermine the integrity of
an election, the petition must be stayed.
PERB has not issued a decision on facts like these, i.e., where an agent of the
employer is accused of playing a leading role in a decertification effort to the point of
signing the petition and acting as the employees’ representative. However, many
decisions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hold that agents of the

10
employer may not participate in or provide more than ministerial aid to decertification
campaigns. (See, e.g., SKC Electric, Inc. (2007) 350 NLRB 857 [interference found
where employer-agent circulated and filed decertification petition]; Central Washington
Hospital (1986) 279 NLRB 60, affd. (9th Cir. 1987) 815 F.2d 1493 [employer’s
involvement in circulation of decertification petition constituted interference]; Hearst
Corp. (1986) 281 NLRB 764, enfd. mem. (5th Cir. 1988) 837 F.3d 1088 [employer
tainted petition by its agent’s direct solicitation of signatures on petition].)7 In all such
cases, the NLRB has uniformly concluded that an employer-agent’s active
involvement in a decertification campaign undermines the possibility of a free election
and taints the entire process.
Petitioners and St. HOPE assert that the petition had already been blocked, the
Union had “plenty of time” to show its commitment to the teachers, and that SCTA
failed to provide sufficient detail to support UPC No. SA-CE-3145-E. But these
arguments do not address the critical inquiry in a blocking charge: whether the
employer’s conduct, as alleged in the complaint, will so taint the election process as to
interfere with employee free choice. (Children of Promise Preparatory Academy,
supra, PERB Order No. Ad-470, p. 1.)
Here, if Hall is indeed an agent of St. HOPE, there can be little doubt that her
active leadership in the decertification campaign would taint the petition and any
resulting election. Indeed, it must be unlawful for an agent of the employer to actively
7 Federal judicial and administrative precedent is not binding on PERB, though
such precedent may be persuasive in construing California’s public sector labor
relations statutes. (See, e.g., Gompers Preparatory Academy (2020) PERB Order No.
Ad-481, p. 5, fn. 4 [citing NLRB decisions to block a decertification petition].)

11
superintend a decertification effort because such conduct necessarily deters or
discourages employees “from becoming or remaining union members,” in violation of
both EERA 3543.5(a) and the PEDD. Thus, given the nature of the allegations, it is
appropriate to stay further processing of the petition to permit a full investigation of the
blocking charge and, if necessary, a proper remedy. (See Consolidated, supra, PERB
Decision No. Ad-504-M at pp. 9-10 [conduct that arguably violates PEDD “is especially
likely to impact an election and thus necessitates a stay”].)
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, SCTA’s request to stay further processing of
the petition is GRANTED. Additionally, the petition remains blocked by any unresolved
charges identified in the September 21, 2021 AD. It is hereby ORDERED that Case
No. SA-DP-278-E be placed in abeyance pending the resolution of all blocking
charges including PERB UPC No. 3145-E.
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. (PERB Reg. 32360(a) &
(b).) The appeal must be in writing and state the specific issues of procedure, fact,
law, or rationale being appealed, as well as the grounds for the appeal. (PERB Reg.
32360(c).)8 Within ten (10) calendar days following the date an appeal is served, any
other party may file with the Board itself a response to the appeal. (PERB Reg.
8 An appeal will not automatically prevent the Board from proceeding in this
case; a party seeking a stay of any activity may file such a request with its
administrative appeal and must include all pertinent facts and justifications for the
request. (PERB Reg. 32370.)

12
32375.)
A. Electronic Filing Requirements
Except as specified below, documents filed with the Board itself must be filed
electronically. (PERB Reg. 32110(a).) Parties filing electronically must create an
account and submit documents through the “ePERB Portal,” accessible from PERB’s
website (www.perb.ca.gov). All electronically filed documents must be in PDF format
and, to the extent possible, text searchable. (PERB Reg. 32110(d).) A document
submitted through ePERB after 11:59 p.m. on a business day, or at any time on a
non-business day, will be deemed filed the next regular PERB business day. (PERB
Reg. 32110(f).) A filing party must adhere to the service requirements described
below.
B. Filing Requirements for Unrepresented Individuals
Individuals not represented by an attorney or union representative, are
encouraged to electronically file their documents as specified above; however, such
individuals may submit their documents to PERB for filing via: in-person delivery, US
Mail, or other delivery service. (PERB Reg. 32110(a) & (b).) All paper documents are
considered “filed” when the originals, including proof of service (see below), are
actually received by PERB’s Headquarters during a regular PERB business day.
(PERB Reg. 32135(a).) Documents may be double-sided, but must not be stapled or
otherwise bound. (PERB Reg. 32135(b).)
The Board’s mailing address and contact information is as follows:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124

13
Telephone: (916) 322-8231
C. Service and Proof of Service
Concurrent service of documents on the other party and proof of service are
required. (PERB Regs. 32360(d), 32375, 32140, & 32093.) Proof of service forms are
located on PERB’s website: www.perb.ca.gov. Electronic service of documents
through ePERB or e-mail is authorized only when the party being served has agreed
to accept electronic service in this matter. (See PERB Regs. 32140(b) & 32093.)
D. Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time in which to file an appeal or an opposition to
an appeal with the Board itself must be in writing and filed with the Board. A request
for an extension must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration of
the time required for filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for
and, if known, the position of each other party regarding the extension, and shall be
accompanied by proof of service of the request upon each party. (PERB Reg. 32132.)