Regents of the University of California Skilled Crafts (PERB 0242HA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
IN 	THE 	MATTER 	OF:
UNIT 	DETERMINATION 	FOR SKILLED
CRAFTS 	EMPLOYEES 	OF 	THE 	UNIVERSITY
OF 	CALIFORNIA PURSUANT 	TO
CHAPTER 744 	OF 	THE STATUTES 	OF
1978 	(HIGHER EDUCATION EMPLOYER-
EMPLOYEE 	RELATIONS 	ACT)
Case Nos. 	SF-RR-1002
et al.
Requests 	for
Reconsideration 	and
Judicial 	Review
PERB Decision No. 	242-H
PERB Decision No. 	242a-H
February 	4, 	1983
Appearances ; 	Judith Droz Keyes 	and Jerrold C. 	Schaefer,
Attorneys 	(Corbett, Kane, 	Berk & Barton) 	and James N. 	Odle,
Associate 	Counsel 	for 	the 	Regents 	of 	the 	University of
California; 	Glenn Rothner, Attorney 	(Reich, Adell & Crost) 	for
American Federation of State, 	County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO; Vincent A. 	Harrington, Jr., Attorney 	(Van Bourg, Allen,
Weinberg 	& 	Roger) 	for 	International 	Union of Operating
Engineers, 	Stationary Local No. 	39, AFL-CIO; Thomas E. 	Rankin,
Attorney 	for 	Laborers' 	Local 	1276 	and 	the Alameda 	County
Building Trades Council, AFL-CIO; 	Philip E. Callis, Attorney for
California State Employees Association; 	Marco Li Mandri 	for
California 	Education Labor 	Organization.
Before Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Tovar, Jaeger, Morgenstern and Burt,
Members.
DECISION
Following 	the 	issuance 	of PERB Decision No. 	242-H on
September 	3 0, 	1982, 	the Public Employment Relations Board 	(PERB
or Board) 	received 	several 	requests 	for 	reconsideration 	and a
petition 	to 	join 	in 	request 	for 	judicial 	review 	of 	that
decision.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

PERB 	rule 	32410(a)1 pertains 	to 	reconsideration 	of Board
decisions 	and 	states:
(a) 	Any party 	to a decision of 	the Board
itself may, 	because 	of 	extraordinary
circumstances, 	file a request 	to reconsider
the 	decision within 	20 	days 	following 	the
date of 	service of 	the 	decision. 	An
original 	and 5 copies 	of 	the 	request 	for
reconsideration 	shall 	be 	filed 	with 	the
Board 	itself 	in 	the 	headquarters 	office 	and
shall 	state 	with 	specificity 	the 	grounds
claimed 	and, 	where 	applicable, 	shall specify
the 	page 	of 	the 	record 	relied 	on. 	Service
and 	proof 	of 	service 	of 	the 	request 	pursuant
to 	section 	32140 	are 	required. 	The 	grounds
for 	requesting 	reconsideration 	are 	limited
to claims 	that 	the 	decision of 	the 	Board
itself 	contains 	prejudicial 	errors 	of 	fact,
or 	newly discovered 	evidence 	or 	law which
was 	not 	previously 	available 	and 	could 	not
have 	been 	discovered 	with 	the 	exercise 	of
reasonable 	diligence.
The 	Board 	has 	considered 	all 	submitted 	requests 	for
reconsideration. 	Some 	of 	the 	requests 	have merely 	repeated
arguments 	previously 	raised 	and 	have 	failed 	to 	present 	any 	new
legal or 	factual 	issues. 	Because 	the Board 	thoroughly
considered 	those 	arguments 	before 	issuing 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	242-H, 	we 	are 	not now 	persuaded 	that 	they should 	again 	be
open 	for 	discussion.
Other 	requests 	have 	brought 	to 	the 	attention of 	the Board
certain 	technical 	errors. 	These 	errors 	include 	the 	omission
from 	seven 	of 	the 	eight 	unit 	determination 	decisions 	of 	an
1PERB 	rules 	are 	codified 	at 	California Administrative
Code, 	title 	8, 	section 	31001 et seq.
22

order 	concerning 	casual 	employees 	of 	the 	University 	of
California 	(University). 	The Order 	in PERB Decision 	242-H 	is
hereby 	amended 	to 	read:
5. 	Each 	of 	the 	units 	found 	appropriate
shall exclude managerial, 	supervisory, 	and
confidential employees 	of 	the 	University.
The 	status 	of 	casual 	employees 	shall 	be
determined 	during 	the 	exclusionary phase 	of
these 	proceedings.
In accordance 	with 	the Order 	in PERB Decision No. 	242-H, 	the
remaining 	technical 	errors 	shall 	be 	corrected 	by 	the 	director
of 	representation.
One 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	raises 	an 	issue 	involving
extraordinary 	circumstances 	which 	warrant 	reconsideration 	of
PERB Decision N O . 	242-H. 	Each request shall be addressed
individually.
I. 	University of California; 	Request 	for 	Reconsideration 	and
Petition 	to Join 	in Request 	for 	Judicial Review
A. 	Proof 	of 	Support
The 	University 	requests 	the 	Board 	to 	rule 	on whether 	the
Higher 	Education Employer-Employee 	Relations Act 	(HEERA)2
requires a 	30 	percent 	showing 	of 	support 	by at 	least one 	employee
organization 	before 	an 	election 	in 	an 	appropriate 	unit may 	be
held. 	Neither 	HEERA nor 	PERB 	rules 	specifically 	state 	what
showing 	of 	support 	is 	required 	by 	a party 	to 	initiate 	an 	election
2 HEERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3560
et 	seq. 	All 	statutory references 	are 	to 	the Government Code,
unless 	otherwise 	specified.
W	3

in an appropriate 	unit. 	(See 	rules 	512353 	and 	51300.4 )
The 	law governing 	elections, 	codified 	at 	section 	3577^ 	and 	in
3 PERB 	rule 	51235 	provides:
The Board 	shall 	serve 	on 	all 	interested
parties 	pursuant 	to 	section 	51020 	a notice
of 	decision 	with 	either 	the 	decision 	of 	the
Board 	itself 	or 	a 	final hearing 	officer
decision.
4 PERB 	rule 	51300 	provides:
Upon 	determination 	to 	conduct 	a
representation election, 	other 	than 	an
election 	directed 	by 	a Board decision, 	the
Board 	shall 	issue 	a notice of 	intent 	to
conduct 	election 	to 	all 	interested 	parties
pursuant 	to Section 	51020. 	A notice of
decision pursuant 	to 	Section 	51235 	which
orders 	a 	representation 	election 	shall 	serve
as 	a 	notice of 	intent 	to conduct 	election.
5 Section 	3577 	provides:
(a) 	Upon 	receipt of a petition 	filed
pursuant 	to Section 	3575 	the 	board 	shall
conduct 	such 	inquiries 	and 	investigations 	or
hold 	such 	hearings as 	it 	shall 	deem
necessary 	in order 	to 	decide 	the 	questions
raised 	by 	the 	petition. 	The determination
of 	the 	board may 	be 	based 	upon 	the 	evidence
adduced 	in the inquiries, 	investigations, 	or
hearings. 	If 	the board 	finds 	on 	the 	basis
of 	the 	evidence 	that 	a question of
representation 	exists, 	or 	a question of
representation 	is 	deemed 	to 	exist pursuant
to subdivision 	(a) 	or 	(b) 	of Section 3574,
it 	shall 	order 	that 	an 	election 	shall 	be
conducted 	by 	secret 	ballot placing 	on 	the
ballot 	all 	employee 	organizations 	evidencing
support 	of 	at 	least 	10 	percent 	of 	the
members of an appropriate 	unit, 	and 	it 	shall
certify 	the 	results 	of 	the 	election on 	the
basis 	of 	which 	ballot 	choice 	received 	a
majority 	of 	the valid 	votes cast. 	There
shall 	be 	printed 	on 	the 	initial ballot 	the
4

PERB 	rule 	51310,6 specifies 	only 	that 	once 	an 	election 	is
directed 	an 	employee 	organization 	with 	10 	percent 	support 	may
appear 	on 	the 	ballot.
choice 	of 	'no 	representation.' 	If, 	at 	any
election, 	no 	choice 	on 	the 	ballot 	receives 	a
majority 	of 	the 	votes 	cast, 	a 	runoff 	election
shall 	be 	conducted. 	The 	ballot 	for 	the 	runoff
election 	shall 	provide 	for 	a 	selection 	between
the 	two 	choices 	receiving 	the 	largest 	and
second 	largest 	number 	of 	valid 	votes 	cast 	in
the 	election.
(b) 	No election 	shall 	be 	held 	and 	the
petition 	shall 	be 	dismissed 	whenever:
(1) 	There 	is 	currently 	in 	effect 	a memorandum
of 	understanding 	between 	the 	employer 	and
another 	employee 	organization 	recognized 	or
certified 	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of
any 	employees 	included 	in 	the 	unit 	described
in 	the 	petition, 	unless 	the 	petition 	is 	filed
not 	more 	than 	120 	days 	and 	not 	less 	than 	90
days 	prior 	to 	the 	expiration 	date 	of 	such
memorandum, 	provided 	that 	if 	such 	memorandum
has 	been 	in 	effect 	for 	three 	years 	or 	more,
there 	shall 	be 	no 	restriction 	as 	to 	time 	of
filing 	the 	petition; 	or
(2) 	Within 	the 	previous 	12 months 	either 	an
employee 	organization 	other 	than 	the
petitioner 	has 	been 	lawfully 	recognized 	or
certified 	as 	the 	exclusive 	representative 	of
any 	employees 	included 	in 	the 	unit 	described
in 	the 	petition, 	or 	a majority 	of 	the 	votes
cast 	in 	a 	representation 	election 	held
pursuant 	to 	subdivision 	(a) 	of 	Section 	3577
were 	cast 	for 	'no 	representation. 1
6 P E R B 	Rule 	51310 	provides:
(a) 	Within 	15 	workdays 	following 	issuance 	of
a 	notice 	of 	intent 	to 	conduct 	election 	in 	the
appropriate 	unit, 	any 	employee 	organization,
whether 	or 	not 	a 	party 	to 	the 	unit 	hearing,
may 	file 	an 	intervention 	to 	appear 	on
5

The 	Board 	grants 	reconsideration 	based 	on 	extraordinary
circumstances 	within the meaning of 	rule 	32410(a). 	Because 	the
showing 	of 	support 	issue 	is 	not 	expressly 	addressed 	by HEERA or
by PERB 	rules, 	it 	should be addressed 	by 	the Board's decision
directing 	elections.
The 	Board 	finds 	that 	a 	30 percent 	showing 	of 	support 	is
required 	by 	HEERA 	before 	a 	directed 	election may 	be 	held. 	This
is 	the 	obvious Legislative 	intent 	underlying 	section 	3573
et 	seq., 	which 	govern 	recognition 	and 	certification 	of 	employee
organizations. 	See 	especially 	subsection 	3575(c),7 which
ballot. 	The 	intervention 	shall 	be 	filed
with 	the 	regional 	office 	on 	forms 	provided
by 	the 	Board. 	The 	intervention 	shall 	be
accompanied 	by 	proof 	of 	support 	of 	at 	least
10 percent of 	the 	employees 	in 	the
appropriate 	unit. 	Proof 	of 	support 	is
defined 	in Division 	1, 	Section 	32700 	of
these 	regulations.
(b) 	Service of 	the 	intervention, 	exclusive
of 	the 	proof of 	support, 	and proof of
service pursuant 	to Section 	32140 	are
required.
7 Subsection 	3575(c) 	states:
A petition may 	be 	filed 	with 	the 	board, 	in
accordance 	with 	its 	rules 	and 	regulations,
requesting 	it 	to 	investigate 	and 	decide 	the
question 	of 	whether 	employees 	have 	selected
or 	wish 	to 	select 	an 	exclusive
representative 	or 	to 	determine 	the
appropriateness of a unit, 	by;
(c) 	An 	employee 	organization wishing 	to 	be
certified 	by 	the 	board 	as 	the 	exclusive
• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	• 	•
6

specifically 	requires 	that 	an 	employee 	organization 	wishing 	to
be 	certified 	by 	the 	Board 	as 	an 	exclusive 	representative 	in 	an
appropriate 	unit 	shall 	file 	a 	petition 	accompanied 	by 	proof 	of
a 	30 percent 	showing of 	interest. 	Where 	the 	Board 	after
hearing 	or 	investigation 	has 	created 	units 	not 	initially 	the
subject 	of 	a petition with 	at 	least 	30 	percent 	showing 	of
support, 	such 	a 	showing 	should 	be 	required 	before 	an 	election
is held.
Federal 	legislation, 	regulations 	and 	judicial precedents
have 	long 	required 	a 	30 	percent 	showing 	of 	support 	before 	an
election will 	be 	held. 	The purpose of 	the 	requirement 	is:
To prevent 	[the Board's] 	process 	and 	the 	time
and 	efforts 	of 	employees 	as 	well 	as 	employers
from 	being 	dissipated 	and 	wasted 	by
proceedings 	instituted 	by 	organization[s] 	that
have 	little or 	no chance 	of 	being 	designated
as 	the 	exclusive 	representatives 	by 	the
employees. 	(NLRB v. 	J. 	I. 	Case Co. 	(9th Cir.
1953) 	201 F.2d 	597 	[31 LRRM 2330, 	2331].)
When 	construing 	HEERA, 	cognizance 	should 	be 	taken of
federal precedents. 	(Firefighters 	Union v. 	City of Vallejo
(1974) 	12 Cal.3d 	611; 	Chaffey Joint Union High School District
(3/26/82) 	PERB Decision No. 	202.) 	Therefore, 	the Order 	in PERB
Decision N O . 	242-H 	is hereby amended 	to read:
representative. 	Such 	petition 	for
certification 	as 	the 	exclusive
representative 	in 	an 	appropriate 	unit 	shall
include 	proof 	of 	a 	30 	percent 	showing 	of
interest 	designating 	the 	organization 	as 	the
exclusive 	representative 	of 	the 	employees.
77

The 	Board 	hereby ORDERS 	a 	representation
election 	in each 	of 	these 	units 	in which 	an
employee 	organization 	has 	demonstrated 	or
demonstrates 	at 	least 	30 	percent 	showing 	of
support 	not later 	than March 15, 	1983. 	The
director 	of 	representation 	may 	seek 	an
extension 	of 	this 	deadline 	in one 	or 	more
units 	from 	the 	Board 	for 	sufficient 	cause.
B. 	Interpretation 	of Government Code 	Subsection 	3579(d)
The 	University 	requests 	the 	Board 	to 	reconsider 	its
interpretation 	of 	subsection 	3579(d).8 In 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	242-H, 	we 	concluded 	"that a 	unit 	of 	skilled 	craft 	employees
limited 	to 	those 	occupations 	traditionally 	identified 	with 	the
construction 	and 	building 	trades 	would 	be 	appropriate 	within
the meaning and direction of subsection 3579(d) 	. 	. 	. 	." 	We
further 	concluded 	that 	"the 	proposed 	units 	of 	skilled 	craft
employees 	which 	would 	include 	occupations 	other 	than 	those
found 	in 	the 	construction 	and 	building 	trades 	are 	also
presumptively appropriate. 	Subsection 	3579(d) 	does 	not
preclude 	such 	units, 	since 	it only 	requires 	that 	they 	include
8 Subsection 3579 (d) 	states:
(d) 	Notwithstanding 	the 	foregoing
provisions 	of 	this 	section, 	or 	any other
provision of law, 	an 	appropriate 	group of
skilled 	crafts 	employees 	shall 	have 	the
right 	to 	be a single, 	separate 	unit of
representation. 	Skilled 	crafts 	employees
shall 	include, 	but 	not 	necessarily be
limited 	to, 	employment 	categories 	such 	as
carpenters, plumbers, electricians,
painters, 	and operating 	engineers. 	The
single 	unit 	of 	representation 	shall 	include
not 	less 	than 	all 	skilled 	crafts 	employees
at a campus or 	at 	a Lawrence Laboratory.
88

'not less 	than' 	all 	of 	the 	traditional 	classifications." 	These
conclusions 	were 	based 	on 	the 	definition 	of 	"skilled 	crafts
employees" 	found 	in HEERA.
The Board's reading of 	subsection 	3579 (d), 	which admittedly
departs 	from 	the 	general 	current 	conception 	of 	the 	term
"skilled 	crafts," 	properly detected 	the 	legislative 	intent 	to
fashion 	a 	distinctive 	and 	limited 	definition 	in 	the 	interest 	of
effectuating 	HEERA's purposes. 	If 	the Legislature 	intended 	to
set 	forth a 	universal definition, 	it would 	not 	have 	been
necessary 	for 	it 	to 	illustrate 	the 	term 	by 	specific 	examples
limited 	to classifications 	which 	are 	functionally 	or
historically 	interrelated.
Linotype 	operators 	and 	pressmen 	come 	to mind 	when 	the 	term
"skilled 	crafts" 	is 	voiced, 	yet 	these occupations 	did 	not 	find
their 	way 	into 	the 	list 	of exemplars. 	Glass blowers,
upholsterers 	and 	bookbinders 	are 	skilled 	crafts, 	but 	are 	not
included 	in 	the 	list. 	Who 	would 	readily 	think 	of 	them as
sharing 	the 	community 	of 	interest, 	functional 	interrelationship
or 	bargaining 	history which 	would make 	it 	appropriate 	to
include 	them 	in 	representation 	units 	with 	carpenters, 	painters
or 	electricians? 	Yet, 	if 	the Board were 	to accept 	the
University's 	broad 	reading 	of 	the 	statute, 	we 	would 	be 	required
to 	include 	all of 	these 	classifications 	in 	such 	units.
The 	fundamental 	oversight 	in 	the University's 	analysis 	is
the 	failure 	to 	acknowledge 	that 	the 	term 	"skilled 	crafts" 	has,
9
9

over 	the 	years, 	taken on a generic 	connotation 	to 	include
virtually any 	job which 	requires 	extensive 	training 	and
experience, 	and 	possibly 	formal 	apprenticeship 	and 	even
licensure—but 	that 	the 	Legislature 	has 	perceived 	no 	basis 	for
requiring 	that 	a 	baker, 	considered 	a 	skilled 	craft 	by 	the NLRB,
be placed 	in a bargaining 	unit with 	stonemasons, 	earthmover
operators or 	sheet metal workers.
It 	is more 	reasonable 	to conclude 	that 	the Legislature,
indisputably 	cognizant 	of 	historic 	industrial 	and 	trade
configurations 	and 	representational patterns, 	instructed 	this
Board 	that, 	of 	all 	the crafts which might 	conceivably 	be
considered 	as 	skilled, 	only a certain 	specific, 	traditional
grouping 	of 	skilled 	crafts 	is 	presumptively 	appropriate. 	The
examples 	set 	forth 	in subsection 	3579 (d) 	are 	not meant 	to be
exclusive. 	The 	statute 	says 	"an 	appropriate 	unit 	shall
include, 	but 	not 	necessarily be limited 	to employment
categories such as carpenters, plumbers, 	electricians, painters
and 	operating 	engineers." 	It 	was 	meant 	to point 	out 	to 	the
Board 	that 	the 	"appropriate" 	grouping 	within 	the 	legislative
contemplation 	consists 	of 	all 	those 	skilled 	trades 	which 	are 	a
part 	of 	historical 	industrial 	and 	trade 	configurations 	related
to 	the 	examples 	provided 	by 	the 	Legislature.
The Board 	is 	not 	persuaded 	that 	its 	interpretation of
"skilled crafts 	employees" 	is 	incorrect. 	The 	request 	for
reconsideration is, 	therefore, 	denied.
10

C. 	Petition 	to join 	in 	Request 	for 	Judicial Review
The 	University 	asks 	in 	the 	alternative 	that 	the Board 	join
in 	a 	request 	for 	judicial review of 	its 	interpretation of
subsection 	3579(d). 	Requests 	for 	judicial 	review of 	unit
determination 	decisions 	are 	governed 	by 	subsection 	3564(a)
which provides:
No 	employer 	or 	employee 	organization 	shall
have 	the 	right 	to judicial 	review of 	a 	unit
determination except: 	(1) 	when 	the board 	in
response 	to a 	petition 	from an 	employer 	or
employee 	organization, 	agrees 	that 	the case
is 	one 	of 	special 	importance 	and 	joins 	in
the request for 	such 	review; 	or 	(2) 	when 	the
issue 	is 	raised 	as a defense 	to 	an unfair
practice 	complaint. 	A board 	order 	directing
an 	election 	shall 	not 	be 	stayed 	pending
judicial 	review.
Upon 	receipt of 	a 	board 	order 	joining 	in 	the
request 	for 	judicial 	review, 	a party 	to 	the
case 	may 	petition 	for 	a writ 	of
extraordinary 	relief 	from 	the 	unit
determination 	decision or 	order.
The 	University claims 	the 	interpretation 	of 	subsection
3579 (d) 	is 	an 	issue of 	"special importance" 	because 	the Board's
decision 	"is 	likely 	to cause 	substantial confusion, 	and 	to
arise 	again 	in 	the 	context of determining 	other 	units 	for 	the
many 	skilled 	crafts 	employees 	of 	the 	University 	who 	have 	not
yet 	been 	unitted." 	This 	argument 	is 	unpersuasive. 	The Board's
decision clearly 	sets 	forth 	its 	interpretation 	of 	subsection
3579 (d). 	It has 	expanded 	upon 	its 	rationale herein. 	There
should 	be 	no 	confusion 	regarding 	the 	Board's 	interpretation,
which 	is within 	the 	intent of section 3579 (d) .
11

The 	University also argues 	that, 	because 	its 	request
concerns 	statutory 	interpretation, 	it presents 	an 	issue 	of
"special 	importance." 	In 	support 	of 	its 	position 	the
University 	cites 	Fairfield-Suisun 	Unified 	School 	District
(6/18/8 0) 	PERB Order No. 	JR-8, 	and Livermore Valley Joint
Unified 	School District 	(10/21/81) 	PERB Order 	No. 	JR-9.9 In
Fairfield-Suisun, 	the Board 	granted 	the 	request 	of 	the
California School Employees 	Association 	that 	it 	join 	in 	seeking
judicial 	review 	of 	the 	meaning 	of 	the 	"same 	employee
organization" 	under 	the EERA. 	That 	decision was 	based 	on 	three
grounds: 	one, 	the 	"significant and novel 	issue" 	raised 	in 	the
case; 	two, 	the 	fact 	that 	the 	issue was 	likely 	to arise
frequently; 	and 	three, 	the 	fact 	that 	the 	employee organization
had 	no 	alternative 	method 	to 	obtain 	judicial 	review. 	These
elements 	are 	not 	all present 	in 	this case.
In Livermore Valley, 	the Board 	declined 	to conclude 	the
case 	was 	of 	"special 	importance" 	where 	the 	decision 	in 	question
involved 	the 	"weighing 	and 	balancing 	of 	the multiplicity" 	of
statutory 	factors 	in 	light 	of 	the 	facts 	presented. 	Such 	a
ruling 	does 	not 	set 	a precedent 	for 	granting 	the 	petition 	to
join 	in 	request 	for 	judicial 	review 	in 	this case.
9 These 	cases 	were 	decided 	under 	the 	Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA), 	codified 	at Government Code
section 	3540 	et 	seq. 	Nevertheless, 	both 	statutes' 	pertinent
provisions 	are 	the 	same.
12

Furthermore, 	in San Diego Unified 	School District
(10/27/81), 	PERB Order No. JR-10, 	the Board emphasized that:
The 	Board's 	considerable 	discretion 	in 	the
determination of 	appropriate 	units 	is
demonstrated 	by 	the 	very 	limited
circumstances 	under 	which 	judicial 	review of
its 	unit 	decisions may 	be 	obtained. 	A claim
of 	"special importance" 	is 	not 	sufficient.
The Board must 	agree 	that 	such 	is 	the 	case.
(P. 	4.)
In the 	final analysis, 	The 	University's 	position 	reflects
nothing 	more 	than 	disagreement 	with 	the 	Board's 	exercise 	of 	the
discretion vested 	in 	it 	by 	the Legislature. 	Petitioner's
request 	that 	the Board 	join 	in 	seeking 	judicial 	review 	is
denied.
II. 	international Union of Operating Engineers, 	Local 39;
Request 	for 	Reconsideration
Local 	39's 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	of 	the Board's
refusal 	to create 	separate 	units 	of 	stationary 	engineers 	at 	UC
Berkeley, 	UC San Francisco 	and 	UC 	Davis 	is 	denied 	for 	failure
to 	raise 	new 	issues 	of 	law or 	fact.
III. 	Laborers' 	Local 1276 	and Alameda Building Trades 	Council,
AFL-CIO; 	Request 	for 	Reconsideration
Laborers' 	Local 1276 	and Alameda Building Trades 	Council,
AFL-CIO 	request 	reconsideration 	of 	the 	Board's 	interpretation
of 	subsection 	3579 (d) 	in order 	to 	include machinists 	and metal
fabricators 	and 	metal platers 	in a 	unit 	of 	skilled 	crafts
employees 	at 	Lawrence Livermore 	National 	Laboratory, 	In 	PERB
Decision No. 	241-H, 	the Board determined 	that 	these 	employees
should be placed 	in the 	technical unit 	(p. 	14-15). 	Petitioners
13

raise 	no 	new 	issues 	of 	law 	or 	fact 	concerning 	that 	decision 	nor
concerning 	the 	interpretation of 	subsection 	3579 (d).
Therefore, 	their 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	is 	denied.
IV. 	California Education Labor 	Organization; 	Request 	for
Reconsideration
The 	California Education Labor 	Organization 	(CELO) 	requests
the Board 	to 	reconsider 	the 	creation of 	systemwide 	units.
However, 	CELO 	is 	not 	a party 	to 	this 	unit determination
process. 	PERB 	rule 	32410 	states 	that 	requests 	for
reconsideration may 	be 	raised 	by 	"Any 	party 	to 	a decision
. 	. 	. 	." 	(Emphasis added.) 	Failure 	to conform to this
limitation 	would 	lead 	to 	inefficiency 	and 	potential misuse 	of
the Board's 	administrative 	processes. 	For 	these 	reasons CELO's
request 	for 	reconsideration 	is 	denied.
V. 	American Federation of 	State, 	County 	and Municipal
Employees, 	AFL-CIO; 	Request 	for 	Reconsideration
The American Federation of 	State, 	County, 	and Municipal
Employees, 	AFL-CIO 	(AFSCME) 	requests 	the Board 	to 	reconsider
its 	refusal 	to 	create a 	residual 	crafts 	unit. 	In 	PERB Decision
No. 	242-H, 	the Board 	ordered 	the 	creation of 	skilled 	crafts
units 	at 	the 	individual 	campuses 	of 	UCLA and 	UC 	San 	Francisco,
and 	a combined 	unit 	at 	UC Berkeley/Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory. 	In 	that 	decision 	we 	considered 	and 	addressed 	the
issues AFSCME again 	raises. 	Its 	request 	is 	therefore 	denied.
In 	the alternative, 	AFSCME asks 	the Board 	to order 	the
creation of 	campus 	units 	for 	those 	skilled 	crafts 	employees 	not
14

placed 	in 	units 	by PERB Decision No. 	242-H. 	Because 	the
California 	State 	Employees 	Association 	(CSEA) 	filed 	a 	similar
petition, 	these 	two requests are addressed together, 	infra.
VI. 	California State Employees Association; 	Request 	for
Reconsideration
CSEA has 	asked 	the Board 	to 	amend 	the 	Order 	in PERB
Decision N O . 	242-H to include 	the creation of a 	residual
skilled 	crafts 	unit 	for 	the Southern 	California campuses,
except 	UCLA, 	and 	individual 	skilled 	crafts 	units 	at 	the
Santa Cruz 	and 	Davis campuses. 	This 	request 	is 	denied 	for
failure 	to 	raise 	new 	issues of 	law or 	fact.
In the alternative, 	CSEA, 	like AFSCME, 	asks the Board 	to
create 	skilled 	crafts 	units 	at 	the 	campuses 	not 	enumerated 	in
PERB Decision No. 	242-H. 	In 	that 	decision 	the Board 	explained
the 	rationale 	for 	finding 	appropriate 	individual campus 	units
of 	skilled crafts 	workers. 	It 	is 	unnecessary 	to 	reiterate 	that
reasoning 	here. 	The 	requests 	of CSEA and AFSCME 	for
reconsideration 	of 	this 	issue 	are 	denied 	for 	failure 	to 	raise
new 	issues of 	law or 	fact.
ORDER
In 	accordance 	with 	the 	foregoing 	discussion 	and 	in
consideration of 	the entire 	record 	in 	this case, 	the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	hereby 	ORDERS 	that:
1. 	Paragraph 	5 of 	the Order 	in PERB Decision 	242-H 	is
amended 	to 	read:
Each 	of 	the 	units 	found 	appropriate 	shall
exclude managerial, 	supervisory, 	and
15

confidential 	employees 	of 	the 	University.
The status of casual employees 	shall 	be
determined 	during 	the 	exclusionary 	phase 	of
these proceedings.
2. 	The 	remaining 	technical errors 	brought 	to 	the Board's
attention 	shall 	be 	corrected 	by 	the 	director 	of 	representation,
in accordance with 	the order 	in PERB Decision No. 	242-H.
3. 	The 	final paragraph of 	the 	Order 	in PERB Decision
No. 	242-H 	is amended to read:
The 	Board 	hereby 	ORDERS 	a 	representation
election 	in each 	of 	these 	units 	in which 	an
employee 	organization 	has 	demonstrated 	or
demonstrates 	at 	least 	30 	percent 	showing 	of
support 	not later 	than March 15, 	1983. 	The
director 	of 	representation may 	seek 	an
extension of 	this 	deadline 	in 	one 	or 	more
units 	from 	the Board 	for 	sufficient 	cause.
4. 	The 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	of 	subsection 	3579(d)
and 	petition 	to 	join 	in 	request 	for 	judicial 	review 	filed 	by
the 	University 	of 	California 	are DENIED 	for 	failure 	to 	show
"extraordinary 	circumstances" 	or 	"special 	importance" 	within
the 	meaning 	of PERB 	rule 	32410 	and 	subsection 	3564(a),
respectively.
5. 	The 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	filed 	by 	the
California 	Education 	Labor 	Organization 	is 	DENIED 	because 	the
organization 	is 	not 	a party 	to 	this proceeding.
6. 	The 	remaining 	requests 	for 	reconsideration 	are DENIED
for 	failure 	to 	show 	"extraordinary 	circumstances" 	within 	the
meaning 	of 	rule 	32410.
By 	the BOARD
16