California School Employees Association and Its Chapter 56 and Turlock Classified American Federation of Teachers (PERB A345E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
TURLOCK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION & ITS CHAPTER 56,
Petitioner,
and
TURLOCK CLASSIFIED AFT,
Petitioner.
Case No. SA-RR-1057-E
Administrative Appeal
PERB Order No.
	Ad-345
January
	26,
	2005
Appearance: 	California School Employees Association by Madalyn
J. Frazzini, Deputy Chief
Counsel, for California School Employees Association & its Chapter 56.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Shek, Members.
DECISION
DUNCAN, Chairman: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeals filed October 5, 2004, and October 21, 2004, by the California
School Employees Association & its Chapter 56 (CSEA) to administrative determinations
related to the representation election for a bargaining unit at the Turlock Unified School
District (District). CSEA has appealed the determination by the Board agent to proceed with a
consent election over its requests for a stay and the determination
of
the Appeals Assistant that
the October 5, 2004, appeal was not proper.
The other parties declined to join CSEA in asking for a stay to allow time for the
internal American Federation
of
Labor and Congress oflndustrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
process related to a violation of Article XX of the AFL-CIO constitution.

The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case and finds the Board agent and
Appeals Assistant determinations were correct and denies the appeals as set forth in the
discussion below.
DISCUSSION
Prior to November 2003, Turlock had two school districts. One was for elementary
schools and one was for high schools. In November 2003 the voters consolidated the districts.
CSEA represented four units at the elementary and high school districts, a unit
of
operations support at each district, an instructional assistants unit at the elementary district and
an office technical unit at the elementary district. The Turlock Classified AFT (AFT)
represented a unit
of
office technical and paraprofessional employees at the high school
district. AFT and CSEA petitioned to represent their same units at the new employer, the
consolidated school district. They proposed five bargaining units. The District did not agree
and proposed three bargaining units following the presumptively appropriate Sweetwater1
district. On May 27, 2004, PERB issued an administrative determination finding the
Sweetwater units more appropriate than the five units proposed by CSEA and AFT.
Both CSEA and AFT petitioned to be placed on the ballot and submitted the requested
proof
of
support. Consent elections were scheduled. The issue here is related only to the
election for the office technical/business support services unit. The election was scheduled for
October 14, 2004.
1Sweetwater Union High School District (1976) EERB Decision No. 4 (Sweetwater).
(Prior to 1978, PERB was known as the Educational Employment Relations Board (EERB).)
2

Reguest for Stay
On September 7, 2004, a request for a stay of the election was sent to PERB by the
president of the AFL-CIO. He indicated that two AFL-CIO affiliates were in a dispute over
representation in the clerical unit. He requested that any PERB action related to the scheduled
election be held in abeyance.
The Board agent contacted the parties indicating that neither the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA)2 nor PERB regulations3 provided for an election to be held
in abeyance as a result of deferral to the internal dispute resolution procedures of unions or
their affiliates. He advised a stay could be granted only if all parties agreed. Only CSEA
wanted a stay. Both AFT and the District would not agree to a stay.
The Board agent, citing International Union of Operating Engineers, State of California
Locals 3, 12, 39 and 501, AFL-CIO (California State Employees' Association, SEIU, AFL-
CIO) (1984) PERB Decision No. 390-S (IUOE), advised the AFL-CIO and the parties that the
election would not be stayed as the parties did not agree to do so.
Appeal Filed on October 5, 2004
On October 5, 2004, CSEA appealed the determination to proceed with the election and
requested a stay, asking that the ballots not be counted. This request was based on action by an
AFL-CIO executive council subcommittee being in the process of reviewing the internal union
issue of the representation dispute.
2EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540, et seq. Unless otherwise noted,
all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.
3PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001, et seq.
3

The appeal was denied as not in line with PERB regulations noting that PERB
Regulation 32752 (Stay of Election), provides for a stay only when there is an unfair practice
charge pending.
Appeal Filed on October 21, 2004
CSEA sent a second appeal to PERB on October 21, 2004. This appealed the
determination of October 6, 2004, and was based on Section 3541.3(n) which allows the Board
to "take any other action ... necessary to discharge its powers and duties." It was CSEA's
position that a stay could be granted on this basis not just on PERB Regulation 32752.
The election was held, the results were certified on October 26, 2004, and AFT
prevailed. There are no objections to the elections process itself.
The Board agent was correct in going forward with the election and denying the request
for a stay. In the case cited by the Board agent, IUOE, the AFL-CIO requested a stay to allow
for the internal procedures of the union. It was also pending completion of the AFL-CIO
Article XX "no raiding" procedures. There, CSEA appealed an administrative decision
denying its request to place a decertification petition in abeyance pending completion of the
Article XX no raiding proceedings. In denying that appeal, the Board stated, "The Board finds
it is neither necessary nor wise to establish in this case a finite policy on deferral to such
external proceedings." (IUOE, at pp. 3-4.)
CSEA also urged that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) example be
followed. We note that the NLRB has specific procedures in place related to AFL-CIO
constitution Article XX proceedings and PERB does not.4
4The NLRB delays action on petitions for 30 days if one of the petitioners is an affiliate
of the AFL-CIO. The NLRB adopted these procedures under the rationale that it avoids
unnecessary case processing by allowing time for operation of the no-raid provisions of the
AFL-CIO. (IUOE, Board agent's determination incorporated as the decision of the Board
itself, May 23, 1984, p. 4.)
4

As to the appeal
of
October 5, 2004, we believe it is not proper to grant a stay here also
because the regulation addressing stay
of
election only involves stays in light
of
pending unfair
practice charges. (PERB Reg. 32752.)
In Robert L. Mueller Charter School (2003) PERB Order No. Ad-320, there was a
question regarding the correct make up
of
a unit. The Board determined it was appropriate to
go forward with the election and said, "[t]he Board therefore allows the election to take place
in the certificated unit as described in [the association's] original request for recognition. This
order to proceed with the election renders [the charter school's] request for a stay moot." The
Board noted that the association opposed a stay because, under Board precedent, absent an
unfair practice charge the election should occur and any representation issues be decided after
the election. (Capistrano Unified School District (1994) PERB Order No. Ad-254; Long
Beach Community College District (2000) PERB Order No. Ad-301 (Long Beach).)5
The request for stay is moot based on the certification
of
the election results.
It is not appropriate to grant a stay based on deferral to an outside entity's internal
procedures and therefore, the appeals are denied.
ORDER
The appeals filed by the California School Employees Association & its Chapter 56 on
October 5, 2004, and October 21, 2004, to PERB administrative determinations are hereby
DENIED WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Members Whitehead and Shek joined in this Decision.
5In Long Beach, the Board determined it would not effectuate the purposes of EERA to
stay the election, but they did impound the ballots pending determination of the administrative
appeal.
5