Regents of the University of California (PERB A527H)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA,
Employer,
and
UNIVERSITY PROFESSIONAL AND
TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES,
COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF
AMERICA LOCAL 9119,
Exclusive Representative.
Case Nos. SF-UM-913-H
SF-UM-914-H
SF-UM-915-H
SF-UM-916-H
PERB Order No. Ad-527-H
April 9, 2025
Appearances: Leonard Carder by Emily M. Maglio, Attorney, for University
Professional and Technical Employees, Communication Workers of America Local
9119; Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & Sommers by Margot A. Feinberg and
Thomas Marren, Attorneys, for Student Services and Advising Professionals – United
Auto Workers.
Before Banks, Chair; Paulson and Krausse, Members.
DECISION
PAULSON, Member: These consolidated cases are before the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) on appeal by University Professional
and Technical Employees, Communication Workers of America Local 9119 (UPTE)
from an Administrative Determination by PERB’s Office of the General Counsel
(OGC). In the four above-captioned unit modification petitions, UPTE sought to add
certain classifications of employees to the Healthcare Professionals (HX) bargaining
unit UPTE exclusively represents at the Regents of the University of California (UC).
While those petitions were pending, interested party Student Services and Advising

2
Professionals – United Auto Workers (SSAP-UAW) filed a request for recognition
accompanied by proof of support seeking to represent a proposed unit of student
services and advising professional employees, some of whom were also included in
UPTE’s unit modification petitions. OGC determined that the four above-captioned unit
modification petitions required a showing of proof of support and provided UPTE an
opportunity to submit that support for verification. UPTE did not submit any proof of
support and so OGC dismissed the petitions.
On appeal, UPTE urges us to find that that it was not required to submit proof of
support with its petitions. In the alternative, UPTE argues that OGC’s determination
that it was required to provide proof of support was premature, and should be deferred
until PERB determines that SSAP-UAW’s proposed unit is appropriate.
We have considered the parties’ arguments on appeal and the entire record in
the consolidated cases. We also take notice of the record in SSAP-UAW’s request for
recognition, Case No. SF-RR-1050-H. For the reasons explained below, we find that
UPTE’s unit modification petitions are subject to dismissal because they were not
accompanied by 30 percent proof of employee support.1 Accordingly, we affirm OGC’s
1 Under PERB Regulations, unit modification petitions to add positions or
classifications to a bargaining unit must be accompanied by proof of majority support
only if the number of employees to be added would increase the size of the bargaining
unit by at least 10 percent. (PERB Reg. 32781(e)(1).) In addition to the conclusion we
address in this appeal, OGC further determined that UPTE needed to provide proof of
majority support because the total number of employees included in the unit
modification petitions was at least 10 percent of the existing HX bargaining unit. UPTE
contends that the number of employees to be added to the bargaining unit is less than
10 percent. We note that in reaching its conclusion, OGC relied only on numbers
provided by UC, which UPTE disputes. In other circumstances, we may order
additional investigation before a petition is dismissed for similar reasons. However,

3
Administrative Determination and dismiss UPTE’s unit modification petitions without
prejudice.
because we determine that UPTE’s petitions must be dismissed for lack of a lesser
showing of employee support, this issue is moot.
BACKGROUND
The Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) and PERB
Regulations govern representation disputes between higher education employers and
unions representing higher education employees.2 UC is a higher education employer
pursuant to section 3562(g). UPTE is a recognized employee organization pursuant to
section 3562(p). SSAP-UAW is an employee organization pursuant to section
3562(f)(1). Between October 24 and November 1, 2024, UPTE filed four unit
modification petitions pursuant to PERB Regulation 32781(a)(1).3 Each petition sought
2 HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq. Unless
otherwise specified, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.
PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
3 PERB Regulation 32781(a)(1) provides:
“Absent agreement of the parties to modify a unit, an
exclusive representative, an employer, or both must file a
petition for unit modification in accordance with this section.
Parties who wish to obtain Board approval of a unit
modification may file a petition in accordance with the
provisions of this section.
“(a) A recognized or certified employee organization may
file with the regional office a petition for modification of its
units:

4
to add parts of individual title code series to the HX unit, contending that the included
employees shared a community of interest with employees already in the unit.4 UPTE
did not submit proof of support with any of the petitions.
“(1) To add to the unit unrepresented classifications or
positions[.]”
On November 8, 2024, SSAP-UAW filed a request for recognition pursuant to
PERB Regulation 51030 seeking to exclusively represent a proposed bargaining unit
of student services and advising professionals comprised of employees in sixteen title
code series.5 All of the employees included in UPTE’s pending unit modification
petitions were also included in SSAP-UAW’s request for recognition.
On November 21, 2024, OGC consolidated UPTE’s four unit modification
petitions into a single proceeding. On November 22, 2024, OGC sent the parties a
letter stating PERB Regulation 32781(e)(2) required UPTE to provide proof of support
with its unit modification petitions. PERB Regulation 32781(e)(2) provides:
“If the [unit modification] petition requests the addition of
classifications or positions to an established unit and the
classifications or positions are also included in a proposed
appropriate unit in a pending request for recognition or
petition for certification, the Board shall require proof of at
4 Title codes are unique identifiers assigned to specific job positions within the
UC system. Case No. SF-UM-913-H included employees in the Student Disability
Specialist 2-4 title code. Case No. SF-UM-914-H included employees in the Health
Educator 2-3 title code. Case No. SF-UM-915-H included employees in the Student
Life and Development Specialist 3 title code. Case No. SF-UM-916-H included
employees in the Advocate 4 title code.
5 Among other classifications, SSAP-UAW’s proposed unit included the Student
Disability Specialist 1-4, Health Educator 1-4, Student Life and Development
Specialist 104, and Advocate 3-4 title code series.

5
least thirty percent support of persons employed in the
classifications or positions to be added.”
OGC afforded UPTE until December 13, 2024 to provide the proof of support. On
December 3, 2024, UPTE filed a letter disputing OGC’s determination that PERB
Regulation 32781(e)(2) required it to provide proof of support. On December 6, 2024,
OGC issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) explaining reasons for its initial
determination to require proof of support and directing UPTE to respond on or before
December 11, 2024. UPTE responded timely by letter with supporting arguments but
did not submit proof of support.
On December 16, 2024, OGC informed the parties that SSAP-UAW had
submitted proof of majority support among employees in the proposed student
services and advising professionals bargaining unit. On December 17, 2024,
SSAP-UAW filed a letter urging OGC to dismiss UPTE’s unit modification petitions for
the reasons stated in the OSC. The same day, OGC issued the Administrative
Determination dismissing the unit modification petitions.
On January 6, 2025, UPTE appealed the Administrative Determination and
requested the Board stay all activity in SSAP-UAW’s request for recognition, Case
No. SF-RR-1050-H. On January 16, 2025, SSAP-UAW filed an opposition to UPTE’s
appeal and request for stay. The next day, OGC entered a stay of activity in Case
No. SF-RR-1050-H on its own motion, pending resolution of this appeal.
DISCUSSION
In an appeal from an administrative determination, the appellant bears the
burden to show the decision being challenged departs from Board precedent or
regulations. (Dailey Elementary Charter School (2024) PERB Order No. Ad-514, p. 6.)

6
The Board applies an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a Board agent’s
determinations on the conduct of the investigation. (City and County of San
Francisco (2022) PERB Order No. Ad-497-M, p. 23.) We review the Board agent’s
legal conclusions de novo. (See Merced City School District (2024) PERB Decision
No. 2901, p. 2.)
The central point of dispute between UPTE and SSAP-UAW is whether or not
PERB Regulation 32781(e)(2) requires dismissal of UPTE’s unit modification petitions.
UPTE first argues that the regulation does not apply, because it filed the unit
modification petitions before SSAP-UAW filed its petition for recognition. In the
alternative, UPTE argues that even if the regulation applies to UPTE’s petitions,
OGC’s determination dismissing them is premature.
As noted above, PERB Regulation 32781(e)(2) states that if a unit modification
petition to add classifications or positions to an existing bargaining unit includes
employees who are also included in a “proposed appropriate unit in a pending request
for recognition or petition for certification,” the unit modification petition must be
accompanied by proof of at least 30 percent support of the employees to be added.
The parties’ arguments require interpretation of two different terms in this quoted
language. First, whether a “pending” request for recognition includes such cases that
may be filed after a unit modification petition, but while the unit modification petition is
still under review at PERB. Second, whether the term “proposed appropriate unit”
means a unit that has already been determined to be appropriate at the time the unit
modification petition is pending. We find that UPTE’s positions on both questions are
not supported by PERB Regulations or existing precedent, as we explain below.

7
I. 	PERB Regulation 32781(e)(2) Require Proof of Support for Any Unit
Modification Being Processed Simultaneously with a Petition for Recognition or
Certification
UPTE’s first argument is that the Administrative Determination erred by
applying Regulation 32718(e)(2) because SSAP-UAW’s request for recognition was
not “pending” when UPTE filed any of the four unit modification petitions at issue in
this case. UPTE argues that the plain meaning of the word “pending” is to describe a
matter already existing at the time. (See PENDING, Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed.
2024) [“Remaining undecided; awaiting decision <a pending case>”].)
We accept that UPTE’s interpretation of the word “pending” is a common one
without ready exceptions, but this does not fully answer the question in the case. It is
undisputed that there was no overlapping pending request for recognition or petition
for certification when UPTE filed the unit modification petitions. However, once
SSAP-UAW filed its request for recognition, that was no longer true. Thus, the
question before us is whether Regulation 32781(e)(2) applies under these
circumstances, where a request for recognition or petition for certification becomes
“pending” while an overlapping unit modification petition is still being processed. The
text of the Regulation itself does not contain any restrictions on it becoming applicable
later, once there is a pending overlapping petition.
It was therefore appropriate for OGC to consider the regulatory history of
Regulation 32781(e)(2). As OGC informed the parties in the OSC, the Board’s final
statement of reasons submitted in support of that provision stated:
“Third, the Board is also proposing to provide for a
circumstance where 30 percent employee support would be
required for a unit modification petition. The fact pattern
where this proposed change would be applicable involves a

8
union petitioning to create and become the exclusive
representative for a unit of currently unrepresented
employees, and an exclusive representative of a separate
unit that wishes, instead, to have the employees added to
its unit. In any particular case, either the unit modification
petition or the initial representation petition might be filed
first, but in any event the two filings are being processed at
the same time. Under these circumstances, it would be
appropriate to have the exclusive representative
demonstrate support for its unit modification petition among
the unrepresented employees when the petitioning union
has already demonstrated support (normally a majority).
The 30 percent level is provided for as it is the most
common level of support required for an employee
organization to intervene on a request for recognition or
qualify for the ballot in a representation election.”
[¶] . . . [¶]
“[A]dopting the proposed language… would allow for
application of the new 30 percent employee support
requirement for a unit modification petition even where it
was filed in advance of a later-filed, overlapping initial
representation petition.”
(Public Employment Relations Board, Regulations Regarding Unit Modification
Petitions, Approved Rulemaking Material, March 2, 2006, Final Statement of Reasons,
OAL 06-0303-01 (emphasis added).) We agree with OGC that this regulatory history
plainly shows Regulation 32781(e)(2) was meant to apply when there are
simultaneously pending, overlapping unit modification petitions and requests for
recognition or petitions for certification, regardless of which petition was filed first. We

9
therefore reject UPTE’s first argument and conclude that the relative timing of the
overlapping petitions does not itself affect whether Regulation 32781(e)(2) applies. 6
II. 	“Proposed Appropriate Unit” Generally Refers to a Description of a Unit
Proposed to be Appropriate for Representation
UPTE’s second argument is that even if PERB Regulation 32781(e)(2) applies
to unit modification petitions when an overlapping request for recognition is filed later,
dismissal of the unit modification petition is premature before PERB determines that
SSAP-UAW’s proposed unit is appropriate. The parties do not provide any arguments
concerning the plain text of the Regulation, but we begin there nonetheless.
As noted above, Regulation 32781(e)(2) applies where positions or
classifications proposed to be added to a unit in a unit modification petition overlap
with those included in a “proposed appropriate unit” in a request for recognition. To be
consistent with UPTE’s argument, this language must refer to an unrepresented unit
that has already been determined to be appropriate for representation. To support
SSAP-UAW’s argument in this case, the language must instead be equivalent to an
unrepresented unit that is proposed to be appropriate.
The term “proposed appropriate unit” is not explicitly defined anywhere in PERB
Regulations. However, including Regulation 32781(e)(2), it appears 23 times. In all but
four instances, the term is used to describe information to be provided along with a
request for recognition, petition for certification, or severance petition. For example, a
petition for certification arising under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA, § 3540 et
seq.) must include “[a] description of the proposed appropriate unit, including the
6 We consider this interpretation in light of the overall purpose of the proof of
support requirement in Regulation 32781(e)(2) in Section III, post.

10
classifications and positions to be included and those to be excluded[.]” (PERB
Reg. 61210(a)(3).) The other four instances are Regulation 32718(e)(2) itself and
three additional substantively identical provisions that apply to cases arising under
different labor relations statutes.7 Thus, where PERB Regulations refer to a “proposed
appropriate unit,” that term invariably means a description of positions or
classifications that are proposed to be appropriate for representation.
On the other hand, apart from Regulation 32781(e)(2) itself, PERB Regulations
for cases arising under HEERA do not use the exact same term. Most pertinent to this
case, the section governing requests for recognition refers to a “unit claimed to be
appropriate” in lieu of the other formulation. (See PERB Reg. 51030.) Elsewhere,
however, the terms are used interchangeably. (Compare PERB Regs. 61215(a)(3)
and (b).)
This textual evidence, on balance, supports SSAP-UAW’s reading of Regulation
32781(e)(2) rather than UPTE’s. The most consistent reading of the language means
that a unit modification petition requires proof of 30 percent support when a
simultaneously pending request for recognition or petition for certification proposes to
place overlapping classifications in a new bargaining unit. Thus, a finding that the
7 While Regulation 32718(e)(2) applies to cases arising under the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA, § 3540 et seq.), HEERA (§ 3560 et seq.), the
Ralph C. Dills Act (§ 3512 et seq.), the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority Transit Employer-Employee Relations Act (Pub. Util. Code,
§ 99560 et seq.), and the Judicial Council Employer-Employee Relations Act
(§ 9524.50 et seq.), the Board has promulgated separate but identical provisions for
cases arising under the MMBA (PERB Reg. 61450(e)(2)), the Trial Court Employment
Protection and Governance Act (PERB Reg. 81450(e)(2)), and the Trial Court
Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act (PERB Reg. 91450(e)(2)).

11
proposed bargaining unit is appropriate is not required before Regulation 32781(e)(2)
applies.
This interpretation is also more consistent with PERB Regulations governing
representation matters more broadly. As noted above, the Board’s statement of
reasons explaining the need for Regulation 32781(e)(2) analogized to intervention
petitions to justify a proof of support requirement under these circumstances.
Intervention petitions arising under HEERA must be accompanied by proof of at least
30 percent support in the unit “claimed to be appropriate by the intervenor.” (PERB
Reg. 51040(b).)
Normally, proof of support determinations are made during the very first phase
of a Board agent’s investigation, well before any unit appropriateness disputes are
resolved. (See PERB Reg. 32784 [Employer files list of employees within 20 days of
filing of petition, after which Board agent may allow up to 10 days for petitioner to cure
any deficiencies, and thereafter “shall inform the parties in writing of the determination
as to sufficiency of the proof of support”].) This is true regardless of whether the matter
arrives at the Board through a unit modification petition or request for recognition or
intervention. (See also PERB Reg. 51050.) Indeed, an employer is not expected to
even raise appropriateness concerns about a proposed unit until after PERB
determines that proof of support is adequate. (See PERB Reg. 51080.) Proof of
support is therefore normally a union’s ticket to initiate or join a representation dispute
from the outset, before any unit determination investigation begins. In an accretion
case, a later, second proof of support showing may be required if the unit

12
appropriateness determination finds that fewer employees will be added to the
bargaining unit than were initially petitioned for. (PERB Reg. 32786(c).)
UPTE’s textual arguments do not support what would be a fundamentally
different process than the one mandated in other representation disputes where proof
of support is required. UPTE’s argument that PERB must first determine that
SSAP-UAW’s proposed unit is appropriate before requiring UPTE to provide its own
proof of support has no basis in the text of PERB Regulations. We turn now to the
broader concerns that animate the normal operation of proof of support requirements
in these cases.
III. 	OGC’s Application of PERB Regulation 32781(e)(2) is in Harmony with PERB
Precedent Prioritizing Resolution of Questions Concerning Representation over
Unit Appropriateness Claims
The Board has, for decades, observed and balanced two competing interests in
representation cases: stable and harmonious labor relations based on appropriate
bargaining units, and employee free choice. In some cases, as where a group of
unrepresented employees proposed to be added to an existing bargaining unit is
small, and there are no competing claims of representation, employees’ preferences
are given little weight. Because accreting a group of employees that constitutes less
than 10 percent of the total number of employees in the unit is unlikely to impact a
union’s overall majority support, proof of support is not required in such cases.
(Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Board (2020)
51 Cal.App.5th 159, 190.) Under those circumstances, there is no “question
concerning representation.” Instead, PERB determines, in disputed cases, only

13
whether the proposed unit modification is appropriate by applying the applicable
statutory unit determination criteria.8
8 HEERA’s unit determination criteria include five overlapping factors:
“(1) The internal and occupational community of interest
among the employees, including, but not limited to, the
extent to which they perform functionally related services or
work toward established common goals, the history of
employee representation with the employer, the extent to
which the employees belong to the same employee
organization, the extent to which the employees have
common skills, working conditions, job duties, or similar
educational or training requirements, and the extent to
which the employees have common supervision.
“(2) The effect that the projected unit will have on the meet
and confer relationships, emphasizing the availability and
authority of employer representatives to deal effectively
with employee organizations representing the unit, and
taking into account factors such as work location, the
numerical size of the unit, the relationship of the unit to
organizational patterns of the higher education employer,
and the effect on the existing classification structure or
existing classification schematic of dividing a single class or
single classification schematic among two or more units.
“(3) The effect of the proposed unit on efficient operations
of the employer and the compatibility of the unit with the
responsibility of the higher education employer and its
employees to serve students and the public.
“(4) The number of employees and classifications in a
proposed unit, and its effect on the operations of the
employer, on the objectives of providing the employees the
right to effective representation, and on the meet and
confer relationship.

14
“(5) The impact on the meet and confer relationship created
by fragmentation of employee groups or any proliferation of
units among the employees of the employer.”
(§ 3579(a).) In addition to these, HEERA contains further unit determination criteria
that apply in specific circumstances. (§ 3579(b)-(f).)
However, the Board has been periodically asked to resolve disputes caused
when one employee organization has filed a unit determination case that does not
raise a question concerning representation, and a second organization has filed
representation petition requiring proof of support, and the two petitions are
incompatible or contradictory. In the examples discussed below, the Board has
prioritized permitting employees to exercise free choice in their selection of a
representative over another organization’s pursuit of a more appropriate unit. These
cases inform and support our application of PERB Regulation 32781(e)(2).
In Peralta Community College District (1987) PERB Order No. Ad-164 (Peralta)
an incumbent exclusive representative of two separate bargaining units filed a unit
modification petition to consolidate them, and to accrete additional employees, into a
single bargaining unit. (Id. at p. 2.) Four days later, another employee organization
filed a decertification petition to replace the incumbent as the exclusive representative
of one of the two established units. (Ibid.) Noting that both petitions were properly
filed, the Board determined that the decertification petition should be given priority, so
long as no formal determination on the merits of the unit modification had been made
at the time the decertification petition was filed. (Id. at p. 8.)

15
The Peralta Board explained that permitting the decertification petition to
proceed first, potentially invalidating the unit modification petition (depending on the
outcome of the election) best effectuated the purpose of the statute:
“While a balance must be struck between issues of unit
clarification and questions concerning representation,
preservation of the integrity of the statutory scheme of the
EERA can best be achieved by recognizing the paramount
right of public school employees to select an exclusive
representative of their own choice. The free choice of an
exclusive representative is a cornerstone of the EERA, as it
is in all analogous collective bargaining schemes. Not only
is free choice crucial to protecting the individual rights
bestowed by the statute, but it is also critical to stable and
efficient labor relations. For collective bargaining to work,
an exclusive representative must fairly and effectively
represent the interests of the members of the bargaining
unit. The best guarantee of such a result is the free and
democratic selection of such representatives by unit
members.”
(Peralta, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-164, pp. 7-8.)
UPTE contends that in Peralta, “PERB held that the question of the appropriate
unit should be determined first.” This reading stems from fact that the unit that was the
subject of the decertification petition had been determined to be appropriate, albeit in
a previous case. (Peralta, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-164, p. 7, referencing Peralta
Community College District (1978) PERB Decision No. 77.)
UPTE’s argument removes this fact from its proper context in the decision. In
noting that the bargaining unit was previously established by the Board, the Board was
rejecting the incumbent union’s argument that circumstances had changed such that
the decertification petition was not filed in an “established unit.” (Peralta, supra, PERB
Order No. Ad-164, p. 7.) A decertification petitioner need only show that the petition is

16
filed for an established unit, not that the established unit is appropriate. There is no
indication in the text of the decision that the Peralta Board meant to require bargaining
units to be appropriate before being subject to otherwise properly filed decertification
petitions. Indeed, this would be directly contrary to the policy reasoning quoted above,
and the actual outcome of the case: the unit modification petition was held in
abeyance while the decertification petition proceeded. (Id. at pp. 11-12.)
The Peralta Board also held that this procedure was needed to curb abuse.
(Peralta, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-164, p. 9.) Allowing the unit modification to
proceed first would allow frivolous petitions to unduly delay elections. On the other
hand, permitting the decertification petition to be processed first did not carry the same
potential for abuse, because such petitions require proof of support. (Id. at pp. 9-10.)
“Proof of employee support acts as an inherent check upon the filing of frivolous
petitions.” (Id. at p. 10.)
Though Peralta involved an attempted unit consolidation request meant to
thwart a decertification petition, a later case demonstrates the similar kind of abuse
that may arise if accretion cases were to be given priority over questions concerning
representation. In Santa Clarita Community College District (College of the
Canyons) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1506 (Santa Clarita), full-time college faculty
members were included in a bargaining unit exclusively represented by an incumbent
employee organization, but part-time faculty were excluded from the unit and
remained unrepresented. (Id. at p. 4.) For years, the part-time faculty sought to be
included in the faculty bargaining unit and made entreaties to the incumbent union to
that effect. (Ibid.) But the incumbent union rebuffed these efforts, perhaps concerned

17
that part-time faculty would “dilute the vote” of the full-time faculty. (Ibid.) After the
failure of these efforts, part-time faculty members contacted a different employee
organization, which began an organizing drive to create and represent a part-time
faculty bargaining unit. (Id. at p. 5.)
Shortly after the part-time faculty began their organizing drive, the full-time
faculty union reversed course, though without the consent or involvement of the
part-time faculty. (Santa Clarita, supra, PERB Decision No. 1506, p. 5.) The full-time
faculty union filed a unit modification petition without proof of employee support and
requested that the employer voluntarily agree to modify the full-time faculty bargaining
unit to include part-time faculty. (Ibid.) The employer initially declined this request, but
several weeks later entered into an agreement with the full-time faculty union to
amend the recognition clause in the parties’ agreement to grant the full-time faculty
union the right to represent part-time faculty. (Id. at pp. 5-7.) Several months later, the
part-time faculty union filed a request for recognition accompanied by proof of majority
support within a proposed part-time faculty bargaining unit. (Id. at p. 7.) The part-time
faculty union also filed an unfair practice charge against the employer for its conduct in
agreeing to the unit modification with the full-time faculty union.
The Board found that the employer unlawfully contributed support to the
full-time faculty union when it entered into the unit modification agreement. The Board
reasoned that employees’ statutory right to be represented by organizations of their
own choosing meant that employees could not be “forced into being represented by an
employer-favored union in the face of organizing efforts by another employee
organization of which the employer is on notice.” (Santa Clarita, supra, PERB Decision

18
No. 1506, p. 22.) On the facts of that case, the incumbent union lacked the support “of
an uncoerced, unassisted majority, any majority, or a single member of the adjunct
faculty during the relevant time periods.” (Id. at pp. 14-15.) Yet the employer agreed to
place those same employees in the incumbent’s bargaining unit at the same time it
was aware of the ongoing efforts by the rival union to organize them into a separate
unit. (Id. at p. 26.) This conduct tended to influence employees’ selection of a
representative and thus violated the statute’s prohibition on providing unlawful
assistance to an employee organization. (Ibid.) Notably, this finding “[did] not require a
determination regarding what would constitute an appropriate unit.” (Id. at p. 26,
fn. 10.)
These precedents uphold a consistent principle across diverse procedural
circumstances: the Board will resolve a question concerning representation before it
considers unit modification petitions that lack proof of employee support. In effect, the
existence of a question concerning representation demands that the Board prioritize
employees’ right to select their own representative over its own responsibility to
determine appropriate units. The Board’s regulations are enacted in harmony with and
give effect to these statutory principles. (Santa Clarita, supra, PERB Decision
No. 1506, pp. 21-22.)
Regulation 32781(e)(2) must therefore be interpreted to give effect to
employees’ right to select a representative. As discussed in sections I and II, ante, the
text of the Regulation, the statements justifying its promulgation, and the overall
regulatory context all support an interpretation requiring proof of 30 percent employee
support for any unit modification petition that is pending at the same time as a request

19
for recognition or petition for certification involving some of the same employees,
before any unit appropriateness determination is made. Requiring proof of support
under these circumstances prevents abuse (Peralta, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-164,
pp. 9-10) and preserves employees’ statutory right to select a representative (Id. at
pp. 8-9; Santa Clarita, supra, PERB Decision No. 1506, p. 24).
Thus, once SSAP-UAW filed its request for recognition for a proposed unit of
employees that included the same ones subject to UPTE’s unit modification petitions,
PERB Regulation 32781(e)(2) immediately imposed a 30 percent proof of employee
support requirement on UPTE’s petitions. UPTE’s failure to provide proof of support
renders the petitions subject to dismissal. (PERB Reg. 32786(b) [Board “shall” dismiss
a unit modification petition if proof of support submitted falls short of requirements].) If
for any reason the disputed positions or classifications remain unrepresented upon the
conclusion of PERB’s processing SSAP-UAW’s request for recognition, UPTE may
re-file its unit modification petitions.9
IV. 	Further Case Processing
As noted above, OGC entered a stay of activity in SSAP-UAW’s petition for
recognition on its own motion, pending resolution of this appeal, on January 17, 2025.
In light of the Board’s resolution of UPTE’s appeal, we direct OGC to lift the stay of
activity in Case No. SF-RR-1050-H.
9 Our order in this matter differs from the Board’s order in Peralta, supra, PERB
Order No. Ad-164, which was to hold the unit modification petition in abeyance
pending the outcome of the decertification election. (Id. at p. 12.) This difference is
due to Regulation 32786(b)’s mandate that the Board agent dismiss petitions that fail
to provide the required proof of employee support, and the fact that PERB Regulation
32781(e)(2) did not exist at the time Peralta was decided.

20
Finally, we take notice of UPTE’s December 19, 2024 application for joinder as
a full party to SSAP-UAW’s request for recognition, and SSAP-UAW’s opposition
thereto. OGC has not yet ruled on UPTE’s application due to the stay, and no party
has placed the issue of UPTE’s status before the Board.
However, HEERA empowers the Board to “take any other action” it “deems
necessary to discharge its powers and duties and otherwise to effectuate the purpose
of [HEERA].” (§ 3563(m).) Here, there are substantial overlapping issues between the
questions presented in the instant appeal and UPTE’s application for joinder: both
fundamentally involve what role UPTE may play in PERB’s resolution of the question
concerning representation presented by SSAP-UAW’s request for recognition. In light
of the Board’s findings in this case, we provide the following guidance to OGC and the
parties in further processing the request for recognition.
Requests for joinder as a party are governed by PERB Regulation 32164, which
states that an employee, employee organization, or employer may request to join a
case if that party has a “substantial interest in the case or will contribute substantially
to a just resolution of the case and will not unduly impede the proceeding.” This
regulation does not contain any limitations on the procedural circumstances in which it
is available. In some circumstances, joinder may be the appropriate procedure where
an employee organization seeks to intervene in another organization’s representation
case. For instance, as we recently held in Regents of the University of California
(2025) PERB Order No. Ad-525-H, where two employee organizations seek to accrete
the same positions or classifications to their own bargaining units, each has a strong
interest in ensuring PERB does not mistakenly assign those positions to the other’s

21
bargaining unit without their participation. (Id. at p. 16.) Joinder, or alternatively,
consolidation of multiple pending cases, ensures full presentation of the issues and
avoids contradictory results.
However, the Board has promulgated other regulations that address when a
party may join a representation dispute under specific procedural circumstances.
Foremost among these are regulations governing an employee organization’s
intervention into another employee organization’s request for recognition. In cases
arising under HEERA, PERB Regulation 51040 requires an organization to file its
intervention within 15 workdays following the posting of a notice of a request for
recognition, and to submit proof of at least 30 percent employee support in the unit
claimed to be appropriate. If no organization successfully intervenes in a request for
recognition, the original petitioner demonstrates majority support, and the employer
does not dispute the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining unit, the Board will
certify the petitioner as the exclusive representative of the unit unless the employer
voluntarily recognizes. (§ 3577(a)(2)(A); PERB Reg. 51096.) It would nullify the strict
proof of support requirements for intervention if joinder could be used as an alternative
procedure to gain party status and intervene in a request for recognition.10 Because
10 PERB Regulations 32165 and 32166 establish additional procedures for a
party to join a hearing on a representation matter. Regulation 32165 allows a party to
join a representation hearing as a “limited party,” which includes “the right to make an
oral statement on the record and to file a written brief.” A limited party is not required
to provide proof of employee support. In contrast, Regulation 32166 permits a party to
join a representation hearing as a full party provided it submits proof of at least 10
percent employee support of a unit in dispute at the hearing, or of a proposed unit that
overlaps a unit in dispute. However, these procedures are only available to third
parties wishing to join a hearing already necessitated by a dispute over the
appropriateness of a proposed bargaining unit. (See Hartnell Community College

22
the proof of support requirements for unit modification petitions contained in
Regulation 32781(e)(2) are analogous to the requirements for intervention, they also
cannot be avoided by an application for joinder.
District (1978) PERB Decision No. 54, p. 9 (Member Cossack concurring in part and
dissenting in part).)
Here, as we have explained, UPTE’s claim that certain positions or
classifications should be placed in the existing HX bargaining unit must be dismissed
for failure to provide proof of employee support. It would be anomalous to permit
UPTE to accomplish the same thing as a joined party to SSAP-UAW’s request for
recognition that it cannot achieve through its own unit modification petitions without
proof of support for the reasons discussed in this decision. Indeed, permitting joinder
for no other reason than that UPTE believes the disputed positions would be more
appropriately placed in the HX unit would undermine employees’ right to be
represented by an organization of their own choosing and the purpose of PERB
Regulation 32781(e)(2), as discussed above, and would therefore unduly impede
processing of the request for recognition. To the extent UPTE’s reasons for joinder are
distinct from the claims and arguments set forth in its unit modification petitions, OGC
may grant UPTE’s application if the requirements of Regulation 32164 are met.
ORDER
The Public Employment Relations Board hereby DENIES the University
Professional and Technical Employees, Communication Workers of America Local
9119’s appeal from the Administrative Determination. The unit modification petitions

23
filed in case numbers SF-UM-913-H, SF-UM-914-H, SF-UM-915-H, and SF-UM-916-H
are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Chair Banks and Member Krausse joined in this Decision.