California Faculty Association (PERB J023H)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA FACULTY ASSOCIATION,
Exclusive Representative.
Case No. LA-UM-723-H
Request for Judicial Review
PERB Order No. Ad-342-H
PERB Order No. JR-23-H
December 29, 2004
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF ACADEMIC
STUDENT EMPLOYEES/UAW,
Joined Party.
Appearances: Joel Block, Labor Relations Manager, for Trustees of the California State
University; Rothner, Segall & Greenstone by Bernhard Rohrbacher, Attorney, for California
Faculty Association; Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & Sommers by Margo A. Feinberg,
Attorney, for California Alliance of Academic Student Employees/UAW.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Neima, Members.
DECISION
DUNCAN, Chairman: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on a request for judicial review by the California Faculty Association (CFA)
of Trustees of the California State University (2004) PERB Order No. Ad-342-H (Trustees of
CSU). In Trustees of CSU, the Board clarified the 1991 unit modification order as to the
definition of excluded employees. CF A and the Trustees of the California State University
(CSU) both submitted proposed orders to the Board agent to clarify the unit. The Board agent
selected the language submitted by CSU.

BASIS FOR REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
CFA maintains that there is a need for judicial review because the order issued by the
Board agent and adopted by the Board as its own decision was written contrary to the statutes
of construction. It is CFA's position that the order as it reads now impinges on the original
1991 order and makes portions of it "meaningless".
DISCUSSION
CFA bears the burden of establishing there is special importance in this case to meet the
necessary standard for the Board to agree to join in the request for judicial review. However, it
does not even indicate which cannon of construction the order allegedly violates.
The Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA)1 section 3564(a)
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.
PERB Regulation 32500(c)2 states:
The Board may join in a request for judicial review or may
decline to join, at its discretion.
It is the sole discretion of the Board to determine if a case is, in fact, one of special importance.
(San Diego Community College District (2002) PERB Order No. JR-20.)
Special importance is established by a showing that the case presents: (1) a novel issue;
(2) primarily involves construction of a unique statutory provision; and (3) was likely to arise
frequently. (The Regents of the University of California (1999) PERB Order No. JR-19-H.)
1HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560, et seq.
2PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001, et seq.
2

We agree with the California Alliance of Academic Student Employees/UAW that CFA
has not met its burden to show this is a case of special importance, meeting the narrow criteria
establishing the basis for the Board to join in a request for judicial review. We do not find that
this is a case of unique statutory provision but agree this is a unit clarification issue that does
not meet the elements necessary to establish special importance.
ORDER
The California Faculty Association's request for judicial review of the Board's decision
in Trustees of the California State University (2004) PERB Decision No. Ad-342-H is hereby
DENIED.
Members Whitehead and Neima joined in this Decision.