Los Rios Community College District (PERB 2587E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Employer,
And
LOS RIOS POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner,
And
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL 1021,
Exclusive Representative.
Case No. SA-SV-186-E
PERB Decision No. 2587
October 2, 2018
Appearances: Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, by Vance Piggott, Attorney, for Los Rios
Police Officers Association; Littler Mendelson, by Bruce Sarchet, Attorney, for Los Rios Community
College District.
Before Banks, Winslow, and Krantz, Members.
DECISION
KRANTZ, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions to the attached proposed decision by a hearing officer (Hearing
Officer) granting a Severance Petition filed by the Los Rios Police Officers Association
(Association). The Association seeks to create a new bargaining unit at the Los Rios
Community College District (District) by severing three classifications—Police Officer,
Detective, and College Safety Officer—from the larger Maintenance/Operations and Campus
Police Officers Unit (Support Services Unit) represented by Service Employees International
Union, Local 1021 (SEIU).

________________________
We have reviewed the entire record in this case, including the Severance Petition, the
hearing transcript, the proposed decision, and the parties’ written submissions, and we have
considered the parties’ arguments in light of applicable law. While we adopt the Hearing
Officer’s findings of fact, our analysis and conclusions depart from the proposed decision. For
the reasons we explain below, we find that the Association has not met its burden of showing
that severing the aforementioned classifications and creating the requested police officers’ unit
would be more appropriate than maintaining the existing Support Services Unit, and
accordingly we dismiss the Severance Petition.
BACKGROUND
This is the second time we have reviewed a petition seeking to remove approximately
16 employees who work within the District’s Police Services Department from the 202-person
Support Services Unit and to establish a separate campus police officers unit. In Los Rios
Community College District (2016) PERB Decision No. Ad-442 (Los Rios CCD), SEIU filed a
unit modification petition asking PERB to sever from the Support Services Unit a new,
separate police officers unit.1 We denied SEIU’s petition, noting that the existing Support
Service Unit is presumptively appropriate under Sweetwater Union High School District
(1976) EERB Decision No. 4 (Sweetwater),2 and as a result “the burden is on the petitioner to
show that the requested unit is more appropriate.” (Los Rios CCD, supra, PERB Decision
1 It is impossible to say whether the two requests are identical, as in the earlier-filed
unit modification request, SEIU failed to identify the specific police officer positions it sought
to include in the proposed police officer unit. (Los Rios CCD, supra, PERB Decision
No. Ad-442, p. 3.) The severance request at issue here seeks to create a new unit consisting of
thirteen Police Officers, two College Safety Officers, and one Detective.
2 Prior to 1978, PERB was known as the Educational Employment Relations Board, or
EERB.
2

________________________
No. Ad-442, p. 3.) We affirmed the Office of the General Counsel’s dismissal of SEIU’s unit
modification petition, finding that SEIU provided insufficient evidence to show that splitting
the Support Services Unit was more appropriate than maintaining the existing Sweetwater unit.
(Id. at pp. 3-4.)
Approximately six months after we declined SEIU’s request to divide the Support
Services Unit into two SEIU-represented units, the Association filed the petition in this case to
sever the same or similar police department classifications from the main unit and to become
those employees’ exclusive representative. The District opposed the Association’s Severance
Petition, just as it opposed SEIU’s unit modification petition. SEIU initially stated that it did
not oppose the Association’s Severance Petition, but then changed course at the hearing in this
matter, objecting to the severance of the College Safety Officer and Detective classifications.3
DISCUSSION
In Sweetwater, supra, EERB Decision No. 4, the Board established three presumptively
appropriate bargaining units for classified employees of school districts, including: (1) an
operations-support services unit, (2) an instructional aides (paraprofessional) unit; and (3) an
office-technical and business services unit. There is no dispute that the current Support
Services Unit is an operations-support services unit and is therefore presumptively appropriate
under Sweetwater. (Los Rios CCD, supra, PERB Decision No. Ad-442, p. 3.) For that reason,
“the burden is on the petitioner to show that the requested unit is more appropriate.” (Ibid.)
Thus, to meet its burden, the Association must show not only that its proposed unit is
appropriate, but that it is more appropriate than the existing unit. (Los Angeles Unified School
3 The Hearing Officer granted the Association’s motion to amend its Severance Petition
to include the sole Detective. Although both the District and SEIU objected to the amendment,
neither party excepted to the Hearing Officer’s ruling on that matter.
3

________________________
District (1998) PERB Decision No. 1267, adopting proposed decision at p. 47 (LAUSD II),
citing Compton Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 109; Long Beach
Community College District (1999) PERB Decision No. 1315, adopting proposed decision at
p. 10 (Long Beach CCD); Los Angeles Unified School District (1993) PERB Order
No. Ad-250, p. 6 (LAUSD I).)4
In determining unit appropriateness, we consider community of interest among
employees, efficiency of employer operations, and established practices, including both
negotiating history and the extent to which employees belong to the same employee
organization. (Gov. Code, § 3545, subd. (a); LAUSD II, supra, PERB Decision No. 1267,
adopting proposed decision at p. 47, citing Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
(1981) PERB Decision No. 165, p. 5 (Livermore).) Negotiating history is of particular
importance when considering a severance request, as “a stable negotiating relationship will not
be lightly disturbed.” (Livermore, supra, p. 6.) In seeking to divide a presumptively
appropriate Sweetwater unit, the Association must “show that there has been a change of
circumstances sufficient to justify a variation of an established unit.” (LAUSD I, supra, PERB
Order No. Ad-250, p. 6.)
A community of interest exists if employees “‘share a substantial mutual interest in
matters subject to meeting and negotiating.’” (LAUSD II, supra, PERB Decision No. 1267,
adopting proposed decision at p. 49, quoting Monterey Peninsula Community College District
(1978) PERB Decision No. 76.) “[I]t is axiomatic that every classification has attributes
4 In LAUSD I, we affirmed the dismissal of a severance request filed by Busdrivers
Association for Unity (BAFU), which sought to sever two bus driver classifications from an
established operations-support services unit. (LAUSD I, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-250.) In
LAUSD II, we denied a second severance petition filed by BAFU regarding the same bus driver
classifications. (LAUSD II, supra, PERB Decision No. 1267.)
4

distinguishing it from all other classifications in an existing unit.” (LAUSD II, supra, PERB
Decision No. 1267, p. 55.) But it is not enough to show that the group to be severed has a
community of interest among themselves. “It is also necessary to establish that their
community of interest is not shared with the larger group.” (Oakland Unified School District
(2001) PERB Decision No. 1464, adopting proposed decision at p. 21.) Even classifications
whose interests and priorities conflict may have a sufficient community of interest, “unless it is
concretely shown that collective negotiations are incapable of simultaneously addressing
competing bargaining interests.” (LAUSD II, supra, PERB Decision No. 1267, pp. 49-50,
citing Santa Clara Office of Education (1990) PERB Decision No. 839.)
In this case, while the proposed severed police department classifications share a
distinct community of interest, we do not find that the classifications lack a community of
interest with other employees in the presumptively appropriate Sweetwater unit. We reach this
conclusion because the differences on which the Association relies—including the police
employees’ unanimous opposition to a recently-approved collective bargaining agreement
between SEIU and the District—are not materially different from the garden variety
differences that commonly exist within a bargaining unit. Moreover, as discussed below,
collective negotiations can simultaneously address the interests of the police classifications and
the interests of other unit employees.
Negotiating history is an important factor in determining whether to sever selected
classifications from a unit. In order for this factor to favor severance, the Association must
demonstrate that the exclusive representative has neglected or ignored the interests of Police
Officers, College Safety Officers, and Detectives. (Wheatland Elementary School District
(2001) PERB Decision No. 1434, p. 16; Department of Personnel Administration (1989) PERB
5

Decision No. 773-S, p. 7.) We do not find that the Association has met this burden, and we
affirm the Hearing Officer’s finding that it is possible for a union to represent the petitioned-
for classifications adequately even while they remain part of the larger unit established under
Sweetwater.
In fact, SEIU has made repeated efforts to address wage concerns and other issues
unique to the police department classifications. Employees in the disputed classifications
served as members of SEIU’s negotiating team in the last six rounds of negotiations, since
1997. In 2008, SEIU created a Police Officer Chapter to better represent District police
department employees. While this may show that SEIU recognizes that the police
classifications have separate and distinct bargaining interests, these differences are not
irreconcilable. In both 2014 and 2017, SEIU negotiated a salary increase for police officers far
in excess of that bargained for other members of the unit, and indeed other bargaining unit
employees received a lesser pay increase as a result. SEIU’s bargaining team supported this
differential allocation of funds in 2014 and 2017, and the full unit membership ratified both
agreements. Thus, while the petitioned-for police department classifications make up less than
10 percent of the Support Services Unit, this “readily identifiable minority of unit members is
not required to relinquish its issues regularly to the more powerful majority.” (LAUSD II,
supra, PERB Decision No. 1267, adopting proposed decision at pp. 55-56.)
It may be the case that a majority of incumbents presently in the police department
classifications prefer a separate unit—as demonstrated by the instant Severance Petition and
the earlier unit modification petition. SEIU, similarly, has at times embraced a separate unit.
There is no showing, however, that collective negotiations are incapable of addressing the unit
members’ varied interests.
6

The remaining statutory criterion—efficiency of operations—neither favors nor
disfavors severance on this record. Although the District argues that it would experience at
least some loss of efficiency as a result of severance, such an efficiency argument militates
against severance only if there is concrete evidence that an employer’s operational efficiency
will be “unduly impaired by an additional set of negotiations.” (Long Beach CCD, supra,
PERB Decision No. 1315, adopting proposed decision at p. 12; Livermore, supra, PERB
Decision No. 165, p. 8.) If the District had demonstrated such undue impairment, then
proliferation of units would be a relevant factor to consider. Here, however, the District did
not lay a concrete foundation for its efficiency argument, as it relied mainly on the axiom that
an employer will experience additional bargaining demands if it must meet and confer with
respect to a greater number of units. Our precedent requires a greater showing, as the
legislative purpose underlying EERA presupposes that employers will face some burden in
collective bargaining, and this burden cannot militate against creation of new units in every
case. (Livermore, supra, PERB Decision No. 165, p. 8.)
CONCLUSION
We find that the Association has failed to show that granting severance and creating a
separate unit of police classifications would be more appropriate than maintaining the existing
unit, and thus the Association has failed to overcome the Sweetwater presumption.
ORDER
The Severance Petition in Case No. SA-SV-186-E is hereby DISMISSED.
Members Banks and Winslow joined in this Decision.
7

________________________
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
LOS RIOS POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner,
and
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL 1021,
Exclusive Representative.
REPRESENTATION
CASE NO. SA-SV-186-E
PROPOSED DECISION
(May 31, 2018)
Appearances: Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, by Vance Piggott, for the Petitioner, Los
Rios Police Officers Association; Littler Mendelson, by Bruce Sarchet, for the Employer, Los
Rios Community College District; Weinberg Roger and Rosenfeld, by Matt Gauger, for the
Exclusive Representative, Service Employees International Union Local 1021.
Before Brendan P. White, Hearing Officer.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 3, 2017, the Los Rios Police Officers Association (Association or Petitioner),
filed a Severance Request (Petition) with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or
Board), pursuant to PERB Regulation 337001 and the Educational Employment Relations Act
(EERA),2 seeking to sever a unit of Police Officers and Campus Safety Officers at the Los Rios
Community College District (District or Employer) from the larger Maintenance/Operations and
1 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq. The text of PERB’s regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
2 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. All further statutory
references shall be to the Government Code unless otherwise stated.

Campus Police Officers Unit represented by Service Employees International Union, Local 1021
(SEIU). On May 1, 2017, the District filed a response opposing the Petition. On May 12, 2017,
SEIU filed a response declaring its neutrality in the matter. On January 26, 2018, Petitioner filed
a Request to Amend the Petition, seeking to add the Detective classification to the proposed
bargaining unit. Both the District and SEIU opposed the Request to Amend. For the reasons
described below, the Petitioner’s request is granted. A formal hearing was held in this matter on
January 29, 2018, at which time the parties offered testimony and documentary evidence. The
record was closed and the case submitted for decision on March 14, 2018, when the Petitioner
and District filed their post-hearing briefs.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The District consists of four community college campuses serving roughly 80,000
students from throughout Sacramento County. Currently, the District’s approximately 3,700
employees are divided into four established bargaining units: a faculty unit, two classified
units, and a supervisors’ unit. These units were created in 1977 and have remained unchanged
ever since. Of the two classified units, the Los Rios Classified Employees Association
(LRCEA) represents around 795 “white collar” employees in classifications like Instructional
Assistants, Administrative Assistants, and other clerical staff. SEIU represents the remaining
202 classified, non-supervisory employees in the Maintenance/Operations and Campus Police
Officers Unit, sometimes called the Operations-Support Services unit. This Petition is concerned
with the approximately 16 current employees from that unit who work within the District’s
Police Services Department.
2

________________________
Police Services Department.
The District’s Police Services department is organized by college campus, but also
includes operations at the District office. The department is headed by a Chief, who is supported
by two Administrative Assistants. Each campus has a Police Captain, a Police Sergeant, Police
Officers and College Safety Officers. At the District office, operations are headed by a Police
Sergeant, and include the Police Detective, the Dispatchers and a College Safety Officer. An
additional College Safety Officer reports to the Director of Administrative Services at American
River College.
The Chief and Police Captains are not represented, but the other employees within the
Police Services Department belong to three different bargaining units represented by three
separate organizations. As of July 2017, the Police Sergeants are considered supervisors
represented by the Los Rios Supervisors Association (LRSA).3 The Administrative Assistants
and Dispatchers are members of the LRCEA-represented unit. As already noted, SEIU currently
represents the Petitioned-for employees: Detective, Police Officers, and College Safety Officers.
As of the date of the filing of the Petition, there were thirteen Police Officers, two
College Safety Officers, and one Detective in the District. Additionally, there are three vacant
College Safety Officers, meaning the unit could be as large as 19 under the District’s current
budget and staffing plans. The parties offered substantial evidence about the job duties of these
employees.
3 Prior to July 1, 2017, the Sergeants were in the SEIU bargaining unit. The
classification was moved into the Supervisor’s unit as part of an agreement between the
District, SEIU, and LRSA.
3

________________________
Police Officers
The job duties for the position of District Police Officer are identified in a written job
description and include foot and vehicle patrol, writing reports, issuing citations, and maintaining
public safety. Police Officers communicate with Dispatchers and College Safety Officers via
District-issued radios.
Police Officers also perform basic maintenance on the campus parking kiosks, like putting new
paper in the machines, and clearing coin and bill jams. District Police Officers typically work
Monday through Friday, on either a day shift or a swing shift, which they bid for based on
seniority.
Police Officers must complete a course of training that is certified by the Commission on
Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), be licensed to carry firearms, and meet and
maintain all other POST-related requirements. The duty to carry firearms was added to the
Police Officer classification in or around 2005. In addition to this specialized training, Police
Officers must pass a psychological examination and background check prior to hiring. Police
Officers use specialized tools and equipment on the job, such as a gun, a baton, handcuffs and
pepper spray. Additionally, Police Officers wear a special uniform and badge to distinguish
them from other employees, and they use marked police vehicles. In performing their duties,
Police Officers interact with students, faculty, other classified employees, visitors, contractors,
and anyone else who might be on District property.
As sworn peace officers under Penal Code section 830.32,4 Police Officers must uphold
the law and are responsible for detaining and/or arresting anyone they reasonably suspect has
committed a crime, including fellow District employees. In that regard, at least one Police
4 “The following persons are peace officers…(a) Members of a California Community
College police department…” (Penal Code, § 830.32(a).)
4

________________________
Officer, Alex Conroy, testified that he has investigated two or three crimes or incidents of
misconduct allegedly committed by SEIU unit members employed by the District.
Police Officers are entitled to special protections and rights under the Public Safety
Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA).5 These special protections are recognized in
the District’s collective bargaining agreement with SEIU, specifically Article 16, section 16.7,
which requires that a copy of the POBRA protections be provided to each Police Officer.
Additionally, the District has specialized policies dealing with the investigation and discipline of
Police Officers. The policies, including District Policy 1009, include special procedural and
substantive due process protections not afforded to other employees, and state that decisions with
respect to discipline must be made by the Chief, as opposed to the District’s regular human
resources personnel.
College Safety Officers
The District’s College Safety Officers are not sworn peace officers. However, they do
complete an abbreviated police officer training relating to lawful arrest procedures, and assist
Police Officers in the performance of their broad law enforcement duties. According to the
written job description, the College Safety Officer classification was created in 2000. Such
employees are responsible for performing patrol duties, assisting with traffic control on District
property, assisting with investigations, evidence collection, report drafting, and enforcing laws,
traffic regulations, and safety regulations throughout District property. A significant part of their
duties are focused on the maintenance of the District’s parking kiosks. Like Police Officers,
College Safety Officers wear a uniform designating them as members of the District’s Police
Services Department, and they drive vehicles marked with the District’s Police Department logo.
5 POBRA is codified in Government Code, § 3300 et seq.
5

While they do not carry firearms, appropriately trained College Safety Officers may carry pepper
spray, handcuffs, and/or batons. Also, like the Police Officers, College Safety Officers utilize
District-issued radios to communicate with Dispatchers and each other. The record evidence
includes testimony from one former College Safety Officer, Kathleen Church, who previously
worked as a District Police Officer, indicating there is at least some movement between the two
classifications.
Detectives
The job duties and qualifications of the District Detective are virtually identical to those
of Police Officers. According to the written job description, the Detective position was created
in 2008 and the classification’s duties include leading criminal and non-criminal investigations,
controlling crime scenes, supervising the collection and preservation of evidence, preparing
detailed investigative reports, and conducting background investigations for prospective
employees. Witness testimony indicated that both Police Officers and College Safety Officers
worked closely with the Detective as necessary.
Bargaining History
SEIU has represented Police Officers since 1977, and College Safety Officers and
Detectives since those classifications were initially established. Throughout that time, SEIU and
the District have successfully negotiated successive collective bargaining agreements covering
the terms and conditions of these classifications’ employment. The District and SEIU have had a
relatively stable and productive relationship. For example, there have been no strikes or pickets
for at least decade.
The record evidence indicates that Police Officers have played an active role in
negotiations between SEIU and the District. For instance, Police Officers have served on SEIU’s
6

bargaining team for every contract negotiation since 1997, which typically occur every three
years. Since 2008, Police Officers have had their own chapter within SEIU, with its own bylaws
and elected officers. According SEIU, it created this chapter in response to a request from Police
Officers. According to Conroy, who acts as the President of SEIU’s Police Officer Chapter, the
Chapter was created in response to efforts by Police Officers to break away from SEIU and form
their own union.
In any event, as noted above, SEIU and the District have negotiated contract language to
address specific concerns of Police Officers. Moreover, SEIU has successfully negotiated
special wage increases for Police Officers in the last two rounds of negotiations: 8% over and
above the rest of the bargaining unit in 2014, and 10% over and above the bargaining unit in
2017. Although the Detective classification received the 2017 raise, the record is silent as to any
additional wage increases for College Safety Officers.
According to the District’s evidence, the creation of the new Petitioned-for unit would
require an increased investment in time and money, owing to the time and energy it would take
to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement. The District also offered evidence indicating
that the creation of a new unit could lead to an additional proliferation of units for tradespeople
and other classifications with distinct characteristics. Thus, the District is primarily concerned
that the Petition threatens the efficiency of its operations.
ISSUE
Should the proposed unit be severed from the existing SEIU unit?
7

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Request to Amend Petition
As noted above, the Petitioner requested to amend the Petition on January 26, 2018, to
include the Detective classification. PERB Regulation section 33100(c) states that,
Amendments to correct technical errors, add or delete job classifications
or positions from a party’s proposed unit which are requested after the
issuance of the notice of hearing are subject to approval by the Board
agent assigned to the hearing. The Board agent may grant the requested
amendment, if it will not unduly impede the hearing, and if sufficient
proof of support is evidenced to support any request for addition of job
classifications. Posting of any such amendments shall be at the discretion
of the Board agent.
There is no good reason to deny the requested amendment to add the Detective
classification to the Petition. First, there is only one Detective and the addition of this one
employee does not undermine the more than adequate proof of support for the Petition.
Second, the addition of the Detective did not delay or complicate the hearing, which began as
scheduled and concluded in one day. Indeed, the parties were able to proffer evidence about
the Detective and argue the matter without impediment. Finally, there is no good cause to
require an additional posting period in this case. Rather, it seems likely that the Petitioner
always intended to seek inclusion of the Detective in its proposed unit and inadvertently
omitted the classification from the original Petition. On this basis, the Petition is amended to
include the Detective.
Appropriate Standard
Subdivision (a) of EERA section 3545 sets forth the standards for determining the
appropriateness of a unit as:
In each case where the appropriateness of the unit is an issue, the board shall
decide the question on the basis of the community of interest between and
among the employees and their established practices including, among other
8

________________________
things, the extent to which such employees belong to the same employee
organization, and the effect of the size of the unit on the efficient operation of
the school district.
Additionally, the negotiating history of the unit must be considered an important factor, along
with subdivision (a) of EERA section 3545, when evaluating a severance request. (Livermore
Valley Joint Unified School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 165.)
Here, the applicable standard is further informed by Los Rios Community College
District (2016) PERB Decision No. AD-442 (Los Rios CCD), where the Board denied a Unit
Modification Petition filed by SEIU to create a new separate police officer unit. In that case, the
Board concluded that SEIU’s existing Operations-Support Services Unit was presumptively
appropriate under Sweetwater Union High School District (1976) EERB Decision No. 4
(Sweetwater).6 On that basis, the Board clarified that “the burden is on the petitioner to show
that the requested unit is more appropriate.” (Los Rios CCD, at p. 3.) Thus, Petitioner must
show not only that its proposed unit is appropriate, but that it is more appropriate than the
existing unit based upon a separate and distinct community of interest among the affected
employees.7 (See Compton Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 109.)
Community of Interest
In support for its contention that there exists a separate and distinct community of
interest between and among the petitioned-for classifications, Petitioner relies principally on
6 Prior to 1978, PERB was known as the Educational Employment Relations Board, or
EERB.
7 Petitioner argues that the current unit is “minimally appropriate” under Sweetwater
because it has undergone several changes since establishment in 1977, e.g., the relatively
recent creation of the Detective and College Safety Officer classifications. However, there is
no case law to support the notion that some Sweetwater units are more presumptively
appropriate than others. Rather, the burden remains the same: Petitioner must show its
proposed unit is more appropriate utilizing the factors set out in EERA section 3545,
subdivision (a).
9

Sacramento City Unified School District (1977) EERB Decision No. 30 (Sacramento City),
where the EERB agreed with the school district that a separate unit of security officers was
appropriate, rather than a wall-to-wall classified unit which included security officers. There,
the Board stated:
Security officers are deputized to make arrests for crimes committed on school
grounds. All officers must complete a basic course in arrest and fire arms
training as provided by the California Penal Code. The special officers enforce
laws and regulations of both the District and the City of Sacramento; they have
the authority to make misdemeanor arrests. They have the authority to arrest
other employees of the District if those employees are engaged in violations of
the law.
We conclude that a separate unit of security officers is appropriate. Strong
policy considerations, long recognized in the private sector, require the
separation of bona fide security guards from the remainder of the classified
employees. Security officers are deputized and employed to defend the
District's premises from others, be they outsiders, students or other employees of
the District. They are empowered to enforce not only the rules and regulations
of the District, but also the laws of the City of Sacramento. The employer is
entitled to a nucleus of protection employees to enforce its rules and protect its
property and persons without being confronted with a division of loyalty
inherent in the inclusion of security officers in the same unit with other
classified employees. [Citations.] Accordingly, we find a separate unit of
security officers appropriate for negotiating.
(Ibid., pp. 5-6; emphasis added; fn. omitted.)
Similarly, in Long Beach Community College District (1999) PERB Decision No. 1315
(Long Beach), also cited by Petitioner, PERB followed the precedent in Sacramento City by
severing a separate unit of security officers from the wall-to-wall classified unit when the
petition was supported by the employer. (Ibid., p. 11.) However, in an earlier decision, PERB
distinguished Sacramento City in Unit Determination for Service Employees of the University
of California (1982) PERB Decision No. 245-H (Unit Determination), when the employer
opposed a separate security unit, stating:
10

The policy of providing a separate unit is for the employer’s benefit. Since in
this case, the University opposes a separate security unit, there is no reason to
apply that policy here. Instead, the unit determination for these employees must
be based on the criteria set forth at section 3579(a) of HEERA.
(Ibid., p. 10; emphasis added.)
In this case, the District opposes the severance of the proposed unit. Thus, the principle
set out in Sacramento City cannot be readily applied here. Rather, to determine whether a
separate and distinct community of interest exists among employees, it is necessary to consider
a variety of factors such as job function, method of compensation, wages, hours, employment
benefits, supervision, qualifications, training and skills, and contact and interchange with other
employees. (San Diego Community College District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1445, p.
8, citing Office of the Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools (1978) PERB Decision
No. 59.) Thus, Petitioner must show that the proposed unit has a “separate and distinct
community of interest” from the existing unit. (Lodi Unified School District (2001) PERB
Decision No. 1429.) Such determinations are made after considering the totality of the
circumstances. The point of inquiry is whether the employees between the proposed and
existing units share substantial mutual interests. (Monterey Peninsula Community College
District (1978) PERB Decision No. 76, p. 13.)
Here, the record evidence reveals that the petitioned-for classifications share a
community of interest that is distinct from those of the other classifications in SEIU’s unit. All
three classifications—Police Officer, College Safety Officer, and Detective—are uniquely
devoted to public safety. They carry various weapons, wear distinct uniforms, receive
specialized training, are subject to unique rules and policies, and must carry responsibilities
unlike any other employee. Indeed, under certain circumstances, all three classifications could
11

be required to investigate, arrest, and/or use force against fellow employees, including those in
SEIU’s bargaining unit.
Conversely, the record contains no evidence suggesting that any of these classifications
has more than incidental contact with the others in SEIU’s bargaining unit, let alone substantial
mutual interests. The majority of the work of the service employees who comprise the larger
Sweetwater unit is devoted to “physical laboring tasks to maintain the campus physical
environment.” (Unit Determination at p. 6.) While there was some evidence regarding the
responsibility of the College Safety Officers to maintain parking kiosks, on the whole, the
petitioned-for classifications do not perform the type of service work that is the hallmark of the
larger unit.
Given the totality of the circumstances, it seems clear that the petitioned-for unit
possesses the requisite community of interest to support the severance request.
Negotiating History
Negotiating history is an important factor in determining whether to sever a unit, and a
stable negotiating relationship will not be lightly disturbed. Nonetheless, it is but one of
several criteria looked to by the Board. (Livermore, supra, PERB Decision No. 165, p. 6.) In
order to place this factor firmly in favor of severance, Petitioner must show that the incumbent
representative is not fully capable of “effectively addressing subjects within the scope of
representation.” (Los Angeles Unified School District (1998) PERB Decision No. 1267, p. 58.)
Although SEIU may have not achieved all of its bargaining goals for the petitioned-for
classifications, the relevant question is whether it addressed “issues of primary concern” in
negotiations. (State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (1989) PERB
Decision No. 773-S (Department of Personnel Administration), adopted proposed decision, p.
12

________________________
16.) Stated another way, Petitioner must demonstrate that the interests of Police Officers,
College Safety Officers, and Detectives have been neglected or “trampled upon or ignored” by
SEIU. (Wheatland Elementary School District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1434, p. 16, and
Department of Personnel Administration, supra, PERB Decision No. 773-S, p. 7.)
Here, the record evidence does not establish SEIU’s incapability to represent the
petitioned-for classifications. On the contrary, it seems clear that SEIU has made repeated
efforts to address wage and other concerns unique to the Police Officers. However, at the
same time, it is also evident that the petitioned-for classifications have drifted away from the
larger unit, a fact that SEIU recognized and attempted to control when it established the Police
Officer Chapter in 2008. This “union within a union,” as SEIU termed it, is evidence of the
proposed unit’s separate and distinct bargaining interests, and SEIU’s need to give voice to
those interests through a specialized collective bargaining structure. Finally, apart from the
proposed inclusion of Detectives, SEIU has staked out a neutral position in this matter, which
is also suggestive of a certain resignation to fact that the petitioned-for classifications have
evolved a separate culture and distinct community of interest.8
In sum, the negotiating history does not strongly militate in favor of or against the
requested severance. At the same time, the history does suggest that the petitioned-for
classifications have developed a distinct character even within SEIU. In this, the evidence
dovetails with the community of interest factors and thus helps to tip the scales in the direction
of severance.
8 Indeed, the fact that SEIU previously filed a failed unit modification petition to create
a new unit out of these classifications is perhaps the best evidence of its recognition that a
separate unit is, in its words, necessary to meet “the needs of its own members.” (Los Rios
CCD, supra, at p. 4.)
13

Efficiency of Operations
The District presented evidence that the creation of the new unit would negatively
affect the efficiency of its operations. Specifically, the District’s witness and Associate Vice
Chancellor of Human Resources, Ryan Cox, testified that the District would have to expend
additional resources and funds to bargain a contract with Petitioner. Admittedly and
necessarily, this testimony was speculative, but the District’s extensive experience negotiating
with various exclusive representatives adds more than a little credibility to its estimates and
projections. Coupled with the relative small size of the requested unit, the evidence reliably
suggests that the District will experience at least some loss of efficiency as a result of the new
obligations another unit would create.
Furthermore, as the Board noted in Los Rios, “[c]arving out police officers from the
existing unit and forming a new unit would increase the total number of units in the District
from four to five. This is the definition of proliferation….” (Los Rios CCD at p. 5.) Thus,
there is at least some risk that this request could lead to fragmentation of the various
bargaining units, which is the chief harm the rule against excessive proliferation guards
against.
However, the record evidence does not ultimately lay a concrete foundation for any of
these potential harms to the efficiency of the District’s operations. First, the bargaining history
between SEIU and the District has already resulted in numerous provisions that are specific to
the petitioned-for unit. That is, it appears much of the groundwork for a separate unit has
already been laid, and there is no reason to believe that the District and Petitioner will have to
begin from scratch or recreate the proverbial wheel should the affected employees choose to be
represented in their own unit. Second, the District already has two classified units, and it is not
14

________________________
clear that a third will unduly impair its operations, especially since the Board long ago
endorsed the notion that as many as three classified units strikes an appropriate “balance
between the District’s desire to be free of excessive unit fragmentation and the need of
employees and organizations to work within sufficiently divided groupings.” (Livermore at p.
9 (citing Antioch Unified School District (1977) EERB Decision No. 37).) Finally, there is no
concrete support for the imagined threat that other groups of employees, like tradespeople, will
seek to break away from SEIU.
Accordingly, the District’s concerns about the efficiency of its operations are
insufficient to tip the scales against the request.
Conclusion
The record evidence establishes that the District’s Police Officers, College Safety
Officers, and Detective enjoy a distinct community of interest, that the relevant negotiating
history supports the request, and that neither the efficiency of the District’s operations nor any
other factor militates against the creation of a separate unit for these employees. In other
words, Petitioner has successfully carried its burden to establish that its petitioned-for unit is
more appropriate than the existing unit. On this basis, the Petition is granted.
PROPOSED ORDER
Pursuant to PERB Regulations 33470 and 33490, PERB shall conduct an election to
determine whether the Police Officers, College Safety Officers, and Detective wish to be
represented by the Los Rios Police Officers Association or SEIU, unless one of these
organizations informs PERB in writing that it does not desire to participate in the election.9 A
9 Pursuant to EERA section 3544.1 and PERB Regulations 33480 and 33485, if only
one organization desires to appear on the ballot and that employee organization has
demonstrated majority support in the unit determined to be appropriate, the employer must
15

________________________
Board agent will contact the parties upon issuance of a final decision in this matter to discuss
the further processing of this case. Should this proposed decision become final, the parties
shall be served with a copy of the decision and a notice of decision which must be posted by
the District pursuant to PERB Regulations 33440 and 33450.
Right of Appeal
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32305, this Proposed Decision and
Order shall become final unless a party files a statement of exceptions with the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) itself within 20 days of service of this
Decision. The Board’s address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
In accordance with PERB regulations, the statement of exceptions should identify by page
citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any, relied upon for such exceptions.
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32300.)
A document is considered “ filed” when actually received during a regular PERB
business day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § § 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code, §
11020, subd. (a).) A document is also considered “ filed” when received by facsimile
transmission before the close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
which meets the requirements of PERB Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also
places the original, together with the required number of copies and proof of service, in the
grant voluntary recognition or PERB will certify the organization as the exclusive
representative.
16

U.S. mail. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, § § 32090 and 32130.)
Any statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served concurrently with its
filing upon each party to this proceeding. Proof of service shall accompany each copy served
on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § § 32300, 32305, 32140,
and 32135, subd. (c).)
17