San Joaquin Regional Transit District * * * PUC TRANSIT CASE. PERB CASE NUMBER CONTAINS INCORRECT LETTERING, AS CASE DID NOT ARISE UNDER MMBA * * * (PERB 2650P)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL TRANSIT
DISTRICT,
SMCS Case No. 17-2-315
Employer, 	Case No. SA-UM-873-M1
and 	PERB Decision No. 2650-P
June 21, 2019	AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION,
LOCAL 276,
Exclusive Representative.
Appearances: Palmer Kazanjian Wohl Hodson by Treaver K. Hodson and Alexandra M.
Asterlin, Attorneys, for San Joaquin Regional Transit District; Neyhart, Anderson, Flynn &
Grosboll by William J. Flynn and Benjamin K. Lunch, Attorneys, for Amalgamated Transit
Union, Local 276.
Before Shiners, Krantz, and Paulson, Members.
DECISION
KRANTZ, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 276 (Local 276),
under PERB Regulation 93060.2 Local 276 asks us to overturn a proposed decision issued by a
hearing officer appointed by the State Mediation and Conciliation Service (SMCS) under
PERB Regulation 93030. The dispute involves Local 276’s Petition for Clarification (Petition)
seeking to accrete the unrepresented classification of Transit Ambassador (TA) at the San
Joaquin Regional Transit District (District) into the District’s single, broad bargaining unit,
________________________
1 As a result of programming changes, in future cases involving transit employers
covered by the Public Utilities Code, PERB will designate the case numbers using the letter P
in place of the letter M.
2 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

2
which Local 276 exclusively represents. The hearing officer denied the Petition, finding that:
(1) the TA classification had been historically excluded from the unit, (2) the classification had
not undergone recent substantial changes necessary to overcome its historical exclusion, and
(3) those findings were sufficient to deny the Petition.
Based on our review of the proposed decision, the entire record, and relevant legal
authority, we reverse the proposed decision and grant Local 276’s Petition for the reasons
discussed below.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The District is one of approximately 18 public transit districts established under the
transit district enabling acts found in the Public Utilities Code (PUC). The District’s enabling
act is codified at PUC sections 50000 through 50507, including labor relations provisions
found at PUC sections 50120-50126.
Local 276 is the exclusive representative of the District’s sole bargaining unit, which
includes the following classifications: Bus Operators, Mechanics, Utility Workers,
Storekeepers, Facilities Technicians, Custodians, and Customer Information Clerks (CICs).3
At the time of the hearing, the District employed approximately 105 employees in the
bargaining unit, and eight TAs outside of the unit.4
________________________
3 The hearing officer denied the District’s petition to remove the CIC classification
from the bargaining unit, finding that the CIC classification has been included in the unit since
at least 1983, and that the evidence did not establish significant changes in that classification’s
duties which would raise any doubt as to its proper placement in the unit. Because neither
party filed exceptions to the hearing officer’s conclusions regarding the CIC classification,
those conclusions are not before us on appeal but remain binding on the parties. (Pub. Util.
Code, § 50121; PERB Regs. 32215, 32300, subd. (c), 93055, 93060, 93065; City of Torrance
(2009) PERB Decision No. 2004, p. 12.)
4 The District also employed one TA Lead. That position was not a subject of
Local 276’s Petition.

3
The District created the TA classification as part of a pilot program in 2014, although
the evidentiary record does not include the exact dates when the District initiated the pilot
program, made the TA classification permanent, or filled the TA positions.5
TAs provide route information and guidance to passengers; sell tickets; assist with
special transit-related events; and monitor District facilities and assigned bus stop locations to
report on safety-related issues and other problems, including graffiti and restroom maintenance
needs that bargaining unit employees must remedy. TAs ride the buses for approximately half
of their daily shifts. For the balance of their time, they are stationed at the central bus terminal
(referred to as the “tarmac”) adjacent to the Downtown Transit Center (DTC), where they
answer passenger questions, help with schedules, assist riders with transit planning, and are
available for other tasks needed to help the transit system operate.
There are similarities between CIC and TA job duties. CICs are stationed at the DTC,
where they answer phone calls regarding bus routes, schedules, and other transit-related
information, and use various District computer systems to assist passengers in planning their
bus routes. The CICs also sell tickets and provide information to patrons who approach the
DTC’s customer service window. Over the years, the District reduced the number of CICs
through layoff and attrition. Ten years ago, there were approximately three full-time and two
part-time CICs. During much of 2016-2017, there were no CICs at the District, and TAs
performed the CIC duties, including helping passengers find the correct bus and determine the
________________________
5 Kent Bradbury (Bradbury), the District’s in-house attorney who oversees labor
relations, testified at the June 2018 hearing that the “position was created about three or four
years ago” as a pilot program. The TA job descriptions and job announcements in the record
are undated. TA Lead Nelson Nieves testified that he retired from the District in 2012 as a bus
operator, and came back “in 2014 . . . in the lead capacity with the pilot program called Transit
ambassadors.”

4
best route to take. When the sole remaining CIC returned from a ten-month layoff in 2017, she
completed a month-long computer training course alongside the TAs.
During 2014-2015, the parties engaged in negotiations for a successor collective
bargaining agreement. In June 2014, Local 276 proposed to add the phrase “information
service delivery” to the existing contractual definition of bargaining unit work. The District
rejected this proposal. Other than this proposal to modify the recognition clause, there is no
evidence the parties discussed or sought to negotiate the inclusion of the TA classification into
the bargaining unit. Nor is there evidence that either party exacted bargaining concessions in
relation to the TA issue, or discussed, much less waived, any right to file a unit clarification
petition.
The parties reached an impasse and submitted their collective bargaining dispute to
mandatory interest arbitration pursuant to PUC section 50120, subdivision (b)(1). On
December 9, 2015, the arbitration board issued a final and binding decision retroactively
imposing a collective bargaining agreement for the term of July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2017.6
On January 5, 2018, Local 276 filed its Petition with SMCS. (PERB Reg. 93005,
subd. (c).) SMCS appointed a hearing officer, who conducted a hearing on June 12, 2018.
(PERB Reg. 93030, subd. (a).) The hearing officer denied the Petition on procedural grounds,
finding the TAs had been historically excluded from the unit, and that Local 276 failed to
submit any evidence showing the classification had undergone recent substantial changes that
would overcome its historical exclusion. Local 276 timely filed exceptions to the proposed
decision and order. The District did not file exceptions of its own, but filed a response to
________________________
6 At the time of the hearing in June 2018, the 2014-2017 agreement remained in effect
pending the outcome of interest arbitration for a successor agreement.

5
Local 276’s exceptions, urging the Board to adopt the hearing officer’s proposed decision and
dismiss Local 276’s Petition.
DISCUSSION
When the Legislature transferred SMCS from the Department of Industrial Relations
(DIR) to PERB in July 2012, the Board itself assumed jurisdiction over appeals from SMCS
determinations in representation matters. (Gov. Code, § 3603, subd. (b); PERB Regs. 93025,
subd. (d), 93060; San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-460-M,
pp. 4-5; San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (2016) PERB Order No. Ad-441-M, p. 2,
fn. 1.) After this transfer was complete, PERB adopted pre-existing transit act regulations that
DIR had promulgated, without making any material changes. (PERB Regs. 93000-93080.)
We first explain applicable accretion principles under the transit district enabling acts,
and we then apply those principles to the factual record. In doing so, we apply DIR and
California Court of Appeal precedent, which have interpreted the transit acts in a manner that
restricts accretions to a lesser degree than the National Labor Relations Act, but more so than
under California’s non-transit public sector labor relations acts. Before turning to this middle
ground standard, however, we provide relevant legal context.
I. 	The Role of Federal Precedent in PUC Transit District Representation Matters
In enacting the various PUC transit district acts, the Legislature took three different
approaches to how federal law would guide determinations of appropriate bargaining units and
other representation matters. Some of these acts provide that SMCS “shall apply” relevant
federal law, while others say SMCS “shall be guided by” relevant federal law. (San Diego
Metropolitan Transit System (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-465-M, pp. 3-4.) The third approach,
used in the acts covering the District and three other transit districts, omit any reference to

6
federal law.7 Instead, this third approach directs SMCS to establish appropriate bargaining
unit “boundaries.” For instance, the District’s enabling act, at PUC section 50121, provides as
follows:
If there is a question whether a labor organization represents a
majority of employees or whether the proposed unit is or is not
appropriate, such matters shall be submitted to the State
Conciliation Service for disposition. The State Conciliation
Service shall promptly hold a public hearing and may, by
decision, establish the boundaries of any collective bargaining
unit and provide for an election to determine the question of
representation.
Prior to the transfer of SMCS to PERB in 2012, SMCS transit district unit
determinations could be appealed to the Director of DIR. (IBEW Local 889 v. Aubry (1996)
42 Cal.App.4th 861, 867 (Aubry).) In 1983, DIR adopted a regulation stating: “In resolving
questions of representation, the Director shall apply the relevant federal law and administrative
practice developed under the Labor Management Relations Act [LMRA], 1947, as amended.”
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 15875.1 [renumbered eff. July 1, 2013].) Upon SMCS’s transfer to
PERB, the Board itself adopted that regulation as PERB Regulation 93080 with only one
change—replacing “Director” with “Board.”
In deciding whether federal law is “relevant” to the question presented in a particular
case, PERB Regulation 93080 “does not demand slavish adherence to the LMRA.” (See Santa
Clara Valley Transp. Auth. v. Rea (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1319 (SCVTA) [interpreting
language in PUC section 100301 identical to that in PERB Reg. 93080].) In SCVTA, the court
analogized the language of PUC section 100301 requiring DIR to apply relevant federal law to
Labor Code section 1148, which similarly requires the Agricultural Labor Relations Board to
________________________
7 The other three transit district enabling acts that do not reference federal law are the
laws covering Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit), the Bay Area Rapid
Transit District (BART), and Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District.

7
“follow applicable precedents of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.”8 (Id. at
pp. 1319-1320.) The California Supreme Court, in turn, has held that “applicable precedents”
under Labor Code section 1148 are “only those federal precedents which are relevant to the
particular problems of labor relations on the California agricultural scene.” (Agricultural
Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 392, 413; see Triple E Produce Corp.
v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 42, 48 [“under certain circumstances, the
board may diverge from federal precedents if the particular problems of labor relations within
the agricultural context justify such treatment”].)
DIR followed essentially the same approach in its precedential decisions. For example,
in San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (1993) DIR Final Decision, adopting
April 2, 1993 tentative decision (SFBART), DIR found the LMRA was not relevant to the issue
of whether certain purported supervisors should be removed from the bargaining unit, given
that California law provides supervisors with relevant protected rights not available under
federal law.9 (Id., Final Decision, adopting tentative decision at pp. 12-13.) Similarly, in
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (2004) DIR Final Decision, adopting
December 4, 2003 proposed decision and incorporated November 17, 2003 preliminary
decision, DIR found no federal law relevant to the issue of whether the Director could certify a
________________________
8 The LMRA amended the National Labor Relations Act. (Chin et al., Cal. Practice
Guide: Employment Litigation (The Rutter Group 2018) § 15:162.) Thus, although they refer
to different Acts, Labor Code section 1148 and PERB Regulation 93080 require the respective
boards to look to the same substantive federal law.
9 SFBART also found that federal law is not relevant under transit district acts with
“boundaries” language because federal private-sector labor law contains no similar concept
regarding unit determination. (SFBART, supra, DIR Final Decision, adopting tentative
decision at p. 11.) Although SFBART suggests a stark contrast between the “boundaries”
language and the other transit district enabling acts referencing federal law, as well as PERB
Regulation 93080, we caution that the difference is, at most, one of the degree to which federal
law may be applicable to a certain situation.

8
bargaining unit that includes supervisors and managers. (Id., Final Decision, p. 5 & adopting
preliminary decision at pp. 9-10.)
Furthermore, courts and PERB have found no relevant federal law where the question
presented is governed by explicit language in the transit district’s enabling act. For instance, in
SCVTA the court held that language in PUC section 100309 requiring the district to “grant
recognition” to any employee organization that represented certain county employees
transferred to the district necessarily contemplated that the bargaining unit would continue to
include managers and supervisors, even though under federal law supervisors and managers
would be excluded from the unit. (SCVTA, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1316-1319.)
Likewise, in San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-465-M, we
held that federal law imposing a three-year contract bar on decertification petitions did not
apply because the district’s enabling act contains an explicit two-year contract bar. (Id. at
p. 4.)
From the above authorities, the following rule may be gleaned: under PERB
Regulation 93080, federal law is relevant, and therefore must be applied, unless (1) the
question presented is governed by an explicit provision of the applicable transit district statute
or (2) considerations unique to public sector labor relations require a deviation from federal
law. Thus, whether federal law is relevant will depend upon the particular circumstances of
each case. Nevertheless, federal law is often fully relevant to transit district representation
matters. (See, e.g., San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, supra, PERB Order
No. Ad-465-M, pp. 4-5 & fn. 6 [while “law and practice under the transit district acts must
necessarily differ, at times, from federal law and practice,” PERB follows federal law, in both
transit and non-transit cases, in holding that a contract extension does not create a contract bar

9
unless it is long enough to create a window in which a representation petition may be filed];
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-464-M, p. 6 [following
federal law and holding that SMCS should consider severance petition and determine if
requested craft unit is appropriate]; San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, supra, PERB
Order No. Ad-441-M, p. 5 [following federal law as to the meaning of the term “labor
organization”].)
II. 	Bargaining Unit Accretions Under the Transit District Acts
The transit district enabling acts generally grant employees the right to form bargaining
units appropriate for collective bargaining and authorize SMCS to resolve disputes over
questions concerning representation (QCR) or whether a particular unit is appropriate. (E.g.,
Pub. Util. Code, § 50121; see also, PERB Reg. 93005 [distinguishing petitions for certification
or decertification, which involve a QCR, from those for clarification, in which there is no
QCR].) A QCR arises when there is a legitimate doubt whether the union has majority support
in the bargaining unit. (NLRB v. Financial Inst. Employees of Am., Local 1182 (1986)
475 U.S. 192, 198.) If a QCR exists, a union must demonstrate majority support among
employees to be added to an existing unit. (Teamsters Nat. United Parcel Service Neg. Cmte.
v. NLRB (D.C. Cir. 1994) 17 F.3d 1518, 1524.) In contrast, accretion allows employees to be
added to an existing unit without an election or other demonstration of majority support.
(Aubry, supra,
42 Cal.App.4th at p. 872.) Thus, “the accretion doctrine’s goal of promoting industrial
stability places it in tension with the right of employees to freely choose their bargaining
representative.” (Frontier Telephone of Rochester, Inc. (2005) 344 NLRB 1270, 1271
(Frontier).)

10
To address this tension, the Aubry court held the following factors must be considered
when determining whether to accrete employees to an existing PUC transit district bargaining
unit: “whether the new group of employees itself constitutes an appropriate unit; the size of
the group to be accreted relative to the size of the existing unit; whether the group to be
accreted was already in existence at the time the existing bargaining unit was recognized; the
extent to which the existing unit is itself the result of prior accretions; and, of course, the views
of the employees.” (Aubry, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 872.) Additionally, as we would in
any case involving a unit determination, we examine the traditional community of interest
factors to determine whether the proposed transit unit is appropriate. These include:
“bargaining history; desires of the affected employees; nature of the employer’s business;
similarity in scale and manner of determining earnings; similarity in employment benefits,
hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment; similarity in the kind of work
performed; similarity in the qualifications, skills, and training of the affected employees;
frequency of contact or interchange among the employees; geographical proximity; continuity
or integration of production processes; common supervision and determination of labor-
relations policy; and relationship to the employer’s administrative organization,” as well as
“the employer’s authority to bargain effectively at the level of the unit and the effect of a unit
on the efficient operation of the public service.” (Id. at p. 871.)10 While most of these factors
are also relevant to one degree or another under federal law, in several respects discussed
below, Aubry and DIR have applied, weighed, and interpreted these factors in a manner that
________________________
10 As described below, system-wide bargaining units “are favored” in California’s
public sector transit districts. (Aubry, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 871.) Adopting a contrary
rule might result in unit proliferation and employee fragmentation that would impede the
efficient service required of our public transportation systems.

11
does not restrict accretions to the same extent as does the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) in applying federal law.
A. 	Bargaining Unit History
We consider first the impact, if any, of the bargaining unit’s history. Relying on federal
law, the hearing officer found this factor alone to be dispositive. For the reasons discussed
below, we find that California’s public transit law does not exactly mirror federal law in
applying this factor and, under applicable transit law, the hearing officer erred in finding the
parties had historically excluded the TAs from the bargaining unit.
Under federal law, “unit clarification is not appropriate during the term of a contract
where such clarification would upset the agreement of the parties concerning the exclusion of
various individuals.” (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2002) 337 NLRB 1061 (Kaiser), citing
Union Electric Co. (1975) 217 NLRB 666, 667, and Batesville Casket Co. (1987) 283 NLRB
795, 797.) On the other hand, unit clarification is appropriate to resolve ambiguities
concerning unit placement of newly established classifications or within an existing
classification which has undergone recent, substantial changes in duties and responsibilities so
as to create real doubt about its continued unit placement. (Kaiser, supra, 337 NLRB at
p. 1061; see also United Parcel Service (1991) 303 NLRB 326, 327 [NLRB will not interfere
with the composition of long-established bargaining units in the absence of recent substantial
changes or other circumstances which would render the Union Electric rule inapplicable].)
Aubry, however, merely asked “whether the group to be accreted was already in
existence at the time the existing bargaining unit was recognized.” (Aubry, supra,
42 Cal.App.4th at p. 872.) DIR precedent is largely in accord, although it also asks whether a
union has explicitly waived inclusion of the classification(s) it now seeks to add. Thus, for a

12
classification such as the TAs, which was established after the initial certification, transit
district law treats the “historical exclusion” issue as simply a waiver issue: If the parties
cannot resolve a unit dispute in negotiations, the party seeking the change may leave the issue
unresolved in negotiations and pursue a unit clarification petition after the collective
bargaining agreement is signed, provided the petitioner has not abandoned its unit request in
exchange for concessions in the negotiations. (SFBART, supra, Final Decision, adopting
tentative decision at pp. 15-17 [interests of stability better served by entertaining a unit
clarification petition during the term of a contract where parties cannot agree on unit placement
during bargaining, absent an indication that the petitioner abandoned its request in exchange
for some concession in negotiations]; see also Baltimore Sun Co. (1989) 296 NLRB 1023.)11
Under this transit law standard, the hearing officer erred in finding that the TAs had
been historically excluded from the unit. The TA classification did not exist at the time the
unit was certified. The evidentiary record is insufficient for us to determine exactly when the
TA classification came into existence relative to the effective date of the 2014-2017
agreement, i.e., whether the District established a permanent TA classification before or after
________________________
11 In contrast, in cases not arising under the transit acts, PERB’s unit modification
procedure is a proper mechanism by which to resolve disputes over unit placement at any time,
even if there is a long history of the classification being excluded from the unit and even if the
petitioning union previously agreed to such exclusion. (Regents of the University of California
(2010) PERB Decision No. 2107-H, pp. 18-23 (Regents I); Hemet Unified School District
(1990) PERB Decision No. 820.) Under these cases and their progeny, (1) a union may seek to
add unrepresented employees to a unit even if the employees were excluded at the time the unit
was first determined, and/or the union clearly bargained for some benefit in exchange for their
exclusion at some point, or otherwise waived their inclusion; and (2) a petitioning union must
only establish a community of interest between the unrepresented employees to be added and
the existing unit, plus proof of support from a majority of the employees to be added, if and
only if the union proposes to increase the size of the unit by more than ten percent. (PERB
Reg. 32781, subd. (e)(1).) PERB has declined to incorporate the “historical exclusion” rule
from Union Electric, supra, 217 NLRB 666 and Laconia Shoe Co. (1974) 215 NLRB 573, 576.
(Regents I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2107-H, p. 22.)

13
the parties’ 2014-2017 agreement took effect. While there is some evidence that Local 276
proposed to expand the definition of bargaining unit work to include “information service
delivery,” that proposal alone does not establish when the permanent TA classification was
established or when the positions were filled. Neither Bradbury’s testimony nor the District’s
undated exhibits resolve the ambiguity. Nor is there evidence that Local 276 clearly and
unmistakably waived its right to file a unit clarification petition with SMCS when TA unit
placement was not resolved during bargaining. The evidence thus does not establish that the
TA classification had been historically excluded from the unit under California transit law.
B. 	Other Accretion Factors
In evaluating the traditional community of interest factors, we acknowledge that public
sector labor relations differ significantly from private sector labor relations. We thus subscribe
to Aubry’s instruction that system-wide units “are favored” in units established under the
transit district enabling acts to avoid unit proliferation and employee fragmentation that would
likely impede the system’s efficiency. (Aubry, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 871.) Even under
federal law, however, system-wide units are considered optimum in transportation systems
because of the integrated and interdependent nature of the services they perform. (Southern
California Rapid Transit District Metro Lines and Local 889, IBEW and Local 1277,
Amalgamated Transit Union (1993) DIR Final Decision, p. 11, and adopting hearing officer
proposed decision at p. 26; St. Louis Public Service Co. (1948) 77 NLRB 749, 754-755.)12
________________________
12 Aubry and DIR precedent, by favoring larger units, thus partially mirror PERB’s
approach in non-transit cases involving accretion of unrepresented employees, where we focus
on preventing the proliferation of bargaining units and fragmentation of employee groups, as
well as finding an appropriate unit in which employees can realistically be represented.
(Regents of the University of California (2017) PERB Order No. Ad-453-H, pp. 10-11, 23-24
(Regents II) [from its earliest days, PERB has sought to avoid fragmentation of employee
groups and unnecessary proliferation of units]; Regents I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2107-H,

14
Thus, both California public sector transit law and federal private-sector law favor broad units
in transit systems.
On the other hand, Aubry requires that we also consider factors unique to accretion of
employees into an existing unit without an expression of employee choice, such as “whether
the new group of employees itself constitutes an appropriate unit; the size of the group to be
accreted relative to the size of the existing unit; . . . the extent to which the existing unit is
itself the result of prior accretions; and, of course, the views of the employees.” (Aubry, supra,
42 Cal.App.4th at p. 872.) This accommodation of the potential conflict between the
preference for broad units and accretion without an expression of employee choice has resulted
in California transit accretion law being less restrictive than federal law but more restrictive
than PERB precedent involving non-transit accretions.13
Applying this middle ground standard, we find that the Aubry factors point toward
adding the TAs to the District’s single existing bargaining unit. Most importantly, the TAs
share a community of interest with the existing bargaining unit. Community of interest is
determined by the totality of circumstances. (Monterey Peninsula Community College District
(1978) PERB Decision No. 76, p. 13.) In determining whether a community of interest exists,
________________________
pp. 23-24; El Monte Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 220, p. 10
[interest in preventing fragmentation or proliferation of units].)
13 Further illustrating this dynamic, DIR and California appellate courts have never
adopted the NLRB’s requirement that a petitioning union show the classifications it seeks to
add share “an overwhelming community of interest” with the existing unit. (See, e.g.,
Frontier, supra, 344 NLRB at p. 1271.) Therefore, we do not apply an “overwhelming
community of interest standard” to a transit union’s attempt to accrete unrepresented
employees into an existing unit. It is also of note that in non-transit cases, PERB has explicitly
rejected applying the “overwhelming community of interest” standard to petitions to accrete
unrepresented employees. (Regents II, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-453-H, p. 5.)

15
we do not “go[] down a check list” of these factors but rather ascertain whether employees
share a substantial mutual interest in matters subject to meeting and negotiating. (Id. at p. 13.)
The District’s operation is moving passengers throughout San Joaquin County via its
public bus system. It is an integrated system. All unit employees contribute to its operation.
Hence, this community of interest determination flows from multiple general and specific
facts, including geographic location, contact, interchange, work proximity, and overlapping
skills and duties between TAs and the historically included CIC classification.
The District has two main facilities, the DTC, where the TAs report for work, and the
Regional Transit Center (RTC), which is approximately two to three miles away from the
DTC. The RTC, also known as the bus yard, is the assigned base work location for most
bargaining unit members, but the DTC is the assigned work location of the CICs and two
custodians. Although TAs are assigned to a different base work location than most bargaining
unit members, TAs have substantial contact with bargaining unit members throughout the day,
both on the tarmac adjacent to the DTC14 and on the buses themselves.
TAs assist passengers with trip planning, finding the right bus, navigating the transit
system, and using fare vending machines. They are described by their first-line supervisor, the
Customer Engagement Specialist, as being “available for anything relative to the Transit
system.” Although TAs check-in at the DTC, their work is divided between assisting
passengers on the tarmac/at the main transfer station and riding on high-traffic buses to assist
passengers. If a TA is on board a bus, the bus operator will refer rider questions to the TA. If
________________________
14 The DTC primarily serves as the workplace for the District’s executive officers and
administration. Adjacent to the DTC, however, is the District’s central transportation hub and
main transfer station for buses traveling throughout Stockton and greater San Joaquin County.
There is space for 20 buses to pull-in to this transfer station area, referred to as “the tarmac.”
Bus operators pick-up or change buses and start and end their routes at the main transfer
station, and take their breaks in the DTC breakroom.

16
no TA is on board, the bus operator will answer the questions herself. Thus, although TAs and
bus operators initially report to different locations, TAs are in constant proximity to bus
operators, both on the tarmac and on the bus routes.
As discussed above, the introduction of the TA classification corresponded closely in
time to the near-elimination of the CIC classification, and TAs picked up many duties
previously performed by CICs. There are some differences between those two classifications.
For instance, CICs work inside the DTC while TAs primarily work outdoors, adjacent to the
DTC or on the buses. However, the similarities outweigh the differences. The one CIC
employed as of the time of hearing works on the ground floor of the DTC and provides
information to patrons who approach the customer service window, while the TAs provide
customer information on the adjacent tarmac. Bradbury noted that when a passenger asks him
a question, he will direct the passenger to a TA if the passenger is on the tarmac, or to the CIC
if the passenger is closer to the DTC.
Moreover, TAs and CICs report to the same immediate supervisor and supervision
chain, receive at least some of the same training, and perform the same primary function of
assisting passengers in navigating the transit system. The existing unit, without the TAs,
comprises at least three lines of supervision at the lowest level, which merge at higher levels,
as one might expect in a broad transit unit. Those three lines of supervision correspond to
Maintenance, Operations, and Customer Engagement.15 TAs, like CICs, are in Customer
Engagement. While there are several other unrepresented hourly employees in the Customer
Engagement Department and in administration, TAs have a stronger community of interest
with the bargaining unit than with those other unrepresented employees. For instance, TAs are
________________________
15 The record is unclear as to whether Facilities employees have a separate line of
supervision, or are supervised by the Maintenance Department.

17
the only unrepresented employees who routinely spend their working hours outside or on the
buses, assisting with the operational aspect of the District’s transit system.
TAs tend to work as early as 6:30 a.m. and as late as 7:00 p.m. Their work hours thus
correspond to when the majority of bus operators work and do not match the office hours of
other unrepresented Customer Engagement employees. TAs and bus operators both work in
outdoor weather conditions and in and around buses, unlike other unrepresented Customer
Engagement employees. TAs are also similar to unit employees in that they wear uniforms and
receive identification badges, which also serve as bus passes, to wear while at work. TAs, like
bus operators, must be familiar with the various bus routes. It is no surprise that the lead TA is
a recently-retired bus operator who is familiar with the bus routes.
The TAs are covered by several employment terms that are similar to unit employees,
and several others that are different. The TA classification is solely a part-time position, while
the CIC and bus operator classifications contemplate both full-time and part-time employment.
Accordingly, the District does not provide the same benefits to the TAs as it does other part-
time positions, such as the bus operators. We have, however, consistently declined to give
significance in the community of interest analysis to differences in wages, benefits, and other
terms and conditions of employment that are primarily controlled by the employer and may be
changed through collective bargaining. (Santa Clara County Office of Education (1990) PERB
Decision No. 839, p. 2 and adopting proposed decision at p. 12.) These differences thus do not
substantially weaken our community of interest finding.
As is usually the case, some community of interest factors weigh against accreting the
TAs into the existing unit. These factors, however, are outweighed by the factors supporting

18
accretion. Moreover, none of the accretion-specific factors listed in Aubry weigh against
accreting the TAs to the existing bargaining unit.
First, there are only eight employees in the TA classification as compared to
approximately 105 employees in the existing bargaining unit; thus, there is little concern that
the accretion could create a QCR or otherwise disrupt Local 276’s majority support within the
unit. (See, e.g., Sacramento Regional Transit District (1988) DIR Final Decision, p. 3 [finding
that fare inspection officers share a sufficient community of interest with existing union-
represented unit and constitute a proper accretion, and noting that small size of proposed
addition relative to existing unit favors accretion].)
Second, the TAs would not constitute an appropriate unit in themselves. Although that
factor is not necessarily dispositive in every case, it favors accretion here. (See Aubry, supra,
42 Cal.App.3d at p. 873 [extent to which this factor overrides other factors may vary
depending upon all relevant circumstances]; International Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers v. NLRB (9th Cir. 1985) 759 F.2d 1477, 1481 [accretion decision “need not
necessarily turn on the question whether that group itself could constitute a distinct unit”].)
Third, there is no evidence of prior accretions to the existing unit. And, fourth, there is
no evidence the TAs were against joining the existing unit represented by Local 276.
Consequently, none of the Aubry accretion factors weighs against accretion here.
In light of the preference for broad units in transit systems, we conclude that the TAs
share a community of interest with employees in the District’s existing bargaining unit and that
nothing in the record weighs against accreting them to that unit. While not every transit
district has a single, broad unit, that is the only structure which has ever existed at the District.
Based on the record before us, we find no reason to depart from that history and exclude the

19
TAs based on relatively small differences that are common within any broad unit, and are not
different in scale from the many differences already existing within its single bargaining unit.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and on the entire record in this case, Amalgamated Transit
Union Local 276’s Petition for Clarification is GRANTED. The Transit Ambassador
classification is hereby added to the District’s existing bargaining unit.
Members Shiners and Paulson joined in this Decision.