County of Orange (PERB 2138M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
UNION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS &
DENTISTS,
Charging Party,
V.
COUNTY OF ORANGE,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-518-M
PERB Decision No. 2138-M
October 25, 2010
Appearance: Lawrence Rosenzweig, Attorney, for Union of American Physicians & Dentists.
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Chair; McKeag and Wesley, Members.
DECISION
DOWD IN CALVILLO, Chair: This case is before the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the Union of American Physicians & Dentists
(UAPD) to the proposed decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ). The complaint issued
by PERB's Office of the General Counsel alleged that the County of Orange (County) violated
the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) 1 by rejecting a petition to sever five classifications
from the County's Healthcare Professionals bargaining unit. The ALJ ruled that the County
reasonably applied its local rule for unit modification to the petition and dismissed the
complaint.
The Board has reviewed the proposed decision and the record in light of UAPD's
exceptions and supporting brief, and the relevant law. Based on this review, the Board affirms
the ALJ' s dismissal of the complaint for the reasons discussed below.
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references are to the Government Code.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Relevant Provisions of the County's Employee Relations Resolution (ERR)
Pursuant to MMBA section 3507, subdivision (a),2 the County adopted its current ERR
in May 1990. None of the ERR provisions discuss severance of classifications from an existing
bargaining unit.
ERR section 3, "DEFINITIONS," provides, in relevant part:
EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION shall mean an employee
organization which has been verified in accordance with Section
7. of this Resolution.
EXCLUSIVELY RECOGNIZED EMPLOYEE
ORGANIZATION shall mean an employee organization which
has been certified in accordance with Section 10. of this
Resolution.
ERR section 7, "VERIFICATION AS AN EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION," provides,
in relevant part:
To be verified as a County employee organization, an employee
organization must comply with the following procedures:
A. A request shall be submitted by the organization, signed by an
authorized representative, to the Personnel Director, and shall
contain the following information:
(1) Name and address of organization.
(2) A statement that the organization has, as one of its
primary purposes, the representation of County employees
in their employer-employee relations.
(3) A statement that the organization includes employees of
the County as its members who have designated it to
2 MMBA section 3507, subdivision (a), authorizes a local public agency to "adopt
reasonable rules and regulations after consultation in good faith with representatives of a
recognized employee organization or organizations for the administration of employer-
employee relations," including rules for verification and recognition of employee
organizations.
2

represent them in their employer-employee relations with
the County.
(4) Certified copies of the organization's constitution and by-
laws.
(5) The names of the employees it represents together with
the class titles and departments where employed.
( 6) A designation of those persons who are authorized to act
as representatives of the organization in any
communications with the Personnel Director of the Board
of Supervisors.
(7) Proof of representation such as active membership cards
which designate the employee organization as the
representative of the employee in employer-employee
relations or such other proof which in the judgment of the
Personnel Director reasonably tends to demonstrate that
the organization does in fact represent employees of the
County.
ERR section 9, "MODIFICATION OF REPRESENTATION UNITS," provides, in
relevant part:
A. An employee organization or Exclusively Recognized
Employee Organization may request the modification of an
established representation unit by filing a request with the
Personnel Director accompanied by a petition signed by the
majority of the regular and probationary employees within the
requested modified representation unit. The petition must
include: a) full printed name of employee, b) signature,
c) date signed. The signatures on the petition must have been
obtained within the 30 days prior to the date the request is
submitted. Requests for modification of an established
representation unit may be filed only during the 30 days
beginning nine months before the expiration of the unit's
current Memorandum of Understanding.
The other subdivisions of ERR section 9 set forth procedures for posting notice of the
modification request and resolution of challenges by other employee organizations.
Subdivision H states in full:
If agreement cannot be reached between the involved employee
organizations or Exclusively Recognized Employee
3

Organizations and the Personnel Director, the matter shall be
submitted to the Board [of Supervisors]. The Board shall hold a
hearing at which time the involved employee organizations and
the Personnel Director shall be heard. The Board shall make the
final determination.
E_RR section 11, "DECERTIFICATION PROCEDURE," provides:
A. During the 30 days beginning nine months before the
expiration of a unit's current Memorandum of Understanding,
requests for decertification of an Exclusively Recognized
Employee Organization may be submitted by employees,
employee organizations or Exclusively Recognized Employee
Organizations. The decertification requests should be
submitted to the Personnel Director and must be accompanied
by a petition signed by at least 50 percent of the regular and
probationary employees within the representation unit. The
petitions must contain: a) full printed name of employee, b)
signature, c) date signed. Signatures on the petition must have
been obtained within the 30 days prior to the date the request
is submitted.
B. When one or more employee organizations or Exclusive
Recognized Employee Organizations have fully complied with
A., above, and all other appropriate provisions of this
Resolution, the Personnel Director shall arrange a secret ballot
election to determine whether or not the Exclusively
Recognized Employee Organization continues to represent a
majority of the regular and probationary employees in the unit
or whether another employee organization or Exclusively
Recognized Empioyee Organization should be certified as the
Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization ....
The Severance Petition
The Orange County Employees Association (OCEA) is the exclusive representative of
the County's Healthcare Professionals bargaining unit. In August 2008, Drs. Donald Sharps
(Sharps) and George Pascarzi (Pascarzi) contacted UAPD because they were dissatisfied with
OCEA's representation. With the assistance of UAPD lead organizer Jake Baxter (Baxter),
Sharps drafted a letter to County Human Resources Director Carl Crown (Crown) entitled
"Petition oflntent to Sever from Orange County Employees Association and Modify Unit."
The letter, dated October 17, 2008, stated, in relevant part:
4

This letter is intended to serve Orange County Human Resources
and the office of the CEO notice that the Psychiatrists,
Physicians, and Dentists (Healthcare Professionals) in the County
General Unit of Orange County want to sever, decertify, from the
Orange County Employees Association [OCEA] and create a
separate bargaining unit. The employees want this new unit to be
represented exclusively by the Union of American Physicians and
Dentists [UAPD], which represents over 4000 county and state
physicians and dentists throughout California. It is our
contention that OCEA has inadequately represented the interests
of these classifications for the past 12 years and it is our right to
seek new representation.
Attached is a petition as required by the (1990) Employee
Relations Resolution Sections 9.A & 11.A containing signatures
from at least 50 percent of the employees in the proposed
bargaining unit demanding to sever from OCEA and to create our
own bargaining unit with UAPD. These signatures were
collected from October 15th to October 1J1h 2008. Therefore we
respectfully request that a new bargaining unit be recognized by
Orange County and be exclusively represented by UAPD.
Attached to the letter was a petition signed by 41 employees from the following five
classifications in the Healthcare Professionals bargaining unit: Community Mental Health
Psychiatrist, Physician, Physician Specialist, Public Health Medical Officer I, and Dentist.
Baxter testified that he "merged" ERR sections 9 .A and 11.A in the letter because he
thought those sections together would provide a basis for the severance petition in light of the
ERR' s failure to address severance. He also testified that the petition was not a request to
decertify OCEA as the exclusive representative of the entire Healthcare Professionals
bargaining unit.
Sometime after submitting the petition, Sharps and Pascarzi met with Assistant Human
Resources Director Shelley Carlucci (Carlucci) to discuss their severance request. Carlucci
testified that she told the doctors the County was reviewing the petition for compliance with
5

the ERR. Carlucci admitted she told Sharps and Pascarzi that severance is not in the ERR, but
she also testified she never told them severance could not be accomplished via the ERR.3
Crown responded to the petition by letter dated October 28, 2008. Crown's letter
stated, in relevant part:
Based on our review, the petition does not meet the requirements
of
the Employee Relations Resolution (ERR) either for a Unit
Modification or Decertification
of
the Orange County Employees
Association as the Exclusively Recognized Employee
Organization.
Unit Modification
Section 9 .A.
of
the ERR provides that a request for modification
of
an established representation unit may be submitted by an
employee organization or Exclusively Recognized Employee
Organization. Your petition was submitted by employees who
are currently members
of
the County Healthcare Professional
Unit but it was not submitted by either an employee organization
or an Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization. An
employee organization is one that has been verified in accordance
with the ERR and an Exclusively Recognized Employee
Organization is one that has been certified in accordance with the
ERR.
The Union
of
American Physicians and Dentists (UAPD)
organization that you reference in your letter has not been
verified as an Employee Organization and has not been certified
as an Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization under the
ERR. Nor has UAPD submitted a request for modification
of
an
estabiished representation unit.
Decertification
Section 11.A.
of
the ERR provides that a request for
decertification may be submitted by employees, employee
organizations or Exclusively Recognized Employee
Organizations. The decertification request must be accompanied
3 On the other hand, the record fails to establish that Carlucci or Crown ever told UAPD
which ERR section it could use to sever the classifications from the Healthcare Professionals
bargaining unit. It appears that, in the absence of a severance rule in the ERR, both U APD and
the County were unsure how to go about processing the severance request at the time of the
events alleged in the complaint.
6

by a petition signed by at least 50%
of
the regular or probationary
employees within the representation unit. The psychiatrists and
other petitioners are members
of
the Healthcare Professional
Unit, and this petition does not contain 50 percent
of
the
employees in that bargaining unit.
Based on the above review and analysis, the County
cc.in
not grant
your Petition
of
Intent to Sever from Orange County Employees
Association and Modify Unit.
Upon receiving Crown's letter, Baxter requested a copy
of
the entire ERR; he testified
he eventually received one from some
of
the employees who signed the petition. On
November 6, 2008, UAPD Regional Administrator John Murrillo (Murrillo) requested in
writing that the County verify UAPD as an employee organization pursuant to ERR section
7.
Based on the information included with Murillo's letter, the County verified UAPD in
December 2008.
Meanwhile, on November
7,
2008, UAPD's counsel, Lawrence Rosenzweig, wrote
Crown asserting that the five classifications in the severance petition were entitled to their own
bargaining unit and requesting the County meet with UAPD to resolve the issue. Two days
later, Baxter phoned Carlucci, who acknowledged that she received the letter and said the
County would respond. 	She also told Baxter that the ERR did not contain any language about
severance and that UAPD would need a showing
of
majority support to decertify OCEA.
Later that day, Baxter contacted Crown by phone. Baxter requested that the County
process the petition "informally" because the ERR contained no severance procedure.
According to Baxter, Crown responded that it was not in the County's best interest to create
the unit and UAPD would need to follow the rules in the ERR.
During these calls, neither Carlucci nor Crown instructed Baxter on the proper
procedure for severing the five classifications from the Healthcare Professionals bargaining
unit. However, Carlucci testified that the County previously had used ERR section 9's unit
7

modification procedures to remove classifications from an existing bargaining unit and place
them in a newly-created unit.
DISCUSSION
The complaint alleged that the County's denial
of
the severance petition based on
failure to comply with ERR sections 9.A and 1 I.A was contrary to the MMBA and thus an
unfair practice. For the following reasons, we agree with the ALJ that the County did not
violate the MMBA by applying section 9.A to the petition and then rejecting it based on its
failure to comply with that section.
1.	
The County's Local Rules
The County's ERR contains no explicit severance provision. UAPD contends that this
omission, in itself, violates the MMBA. While this might have been true as a general
proposition in the days before PERB had jurisdiction over the MMBA, it is not so today.
In 2003, the Legislature amended MMBA section 3509, subdivision (a) to explicitly
grant PERB the authority to adopt regulations "to 'fill in the gap' when a local agency has not
adopted a local rule on a particular representation issue. "4 ( County
of
Siskiyou/Siskiyou County
Superior Court (2010) PERB Decision No. 2113-M.) This amendment reflected the
Legislature's recognition that a local agency's failure to adopt representation rules could result
in the agency "withholding recognition in violation
of
MMBA." (Assem. Com. on Public
Employees, Retirement and Social Security, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1156 (2003-
2004 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 7, 2003, p. 3.) Under PERB Regulation 61000,5 a party may
4 MMBA section 3509, subdivision (a) states, in relevant part: "Included among the
appropriate powers of the board are the power to order elections, to conduct any election the
board orders, and to adopt rules to apply in areas where a public agency has no rule."
5 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq. PERB Regulation 61000 states: "Except as otherwise ordered pursuant to
Chapter 1, or as provided for by Public Utilities Code, Division 10, Part 16, Chapter 5 ( section
8

file a representation petition with PERB when a local agency has no applicable representation
rule. (County
of
Siskiyou/Siskiyou County Superior Court, supra.) Because PERB regulations
apply in such circumstances, the local agency's failure to adopt a particular local rule does not
deprive a party
of
representation rights granted by the MMBA. Accordingly, the absence
of
an
explicit severance rule in the County's ERR does not violate the MMBA.
105140 et seq.), the Board will conduct representation proceedings and/or agency fee
rescission elections under MMBA in accordance with the applicable provisions of this Chapter
only where a public agency has not adopted local rules in accordance with MMBA section
3507."
The absence
of
an explicit local representation rule does not mean, however, that PERB
regulations necessarily apply. Rather, PERB regulations will apply only when the agency's
local rules contain no provision that can accomplish what the petitioner is seeking without
placing an undue burden on the petitioner. In County
of
Siskiyou/Siskiyou County Superior
Court, supra, the Board addressed whether a county's decertification rule provided a
functional equivalent to PERB's regulations governing amendment
of
certification. Finding
the purposes
of
the two procedures to be vastly different and the county's decertification
procedures much more onerous than the regulations, the Board applied its regulations to the
employee organization's petition to amend certification.
A comparison
of
County ERR section 9 .A to PERB' s severance regulations under the
MMBA leads us to conclude that section 9.A applies to the petition in this case. Section 9.A,
part
of
the unit modification provision, states in full:
An employee organization or Exclusively Recognized Employee
Organization may request the modification
of
an established
representation unit by filing a request with the Personnel Director
accompanied by a petition signed by the majority
of
the regular
and probationary employees within the requested modified
representation unit. The petitions must include: a) full printed
name of employee, b) signature, c) date signed. The signatures
on the petition must have been obtained within the 30 days prior
9

to the date the request is submitted. Requests for modification
of
an established representation unit may be filed only during the 30
days beginning nine months before the expiration
of
the unit's
current Memorandum
of
Understanding.
(Emphasis added.)
PERB Regulation 61400 sets forth the procedure for filing a severance petition with
PERB under the MMBA. Subsection (a) provides, in relevant part:
An employee organization may file a petition to become the
exclusive representative
of
an appropriate unit consisting
of
a
group
of
employees who are already members
of
a larger
established unit represented by an incumbent exclusive
representative by filing a petition for certification in accordance
with the provisions
of
Article 3
of
this Chapter.
After setting out the procedure for filing a petition for certification, PERB Regulation
61210 states in subsection (b ), "The petition shall be accompanied by proof
of
at least 30
percent support
of
the employees in the unit claimed to be appropriate."
ERR section 9.A and PERB's MMBA severance regulations are largely identical and
serve a similar purpose, namely to reconfigure an existing bargaining unit. Nothing in section
9 .A indicates that it cannot be used to sever classifications from an existing unit. Indeed,
Assistant Human Resources Director Carlucci testified that on several occasions an employee
organization had used ERR section 9 in tandem with section 8, which sets out the procedures
for establishing a new representation unit, to split an existing bargaining unit into two separate
units.
There is one significant difference between ERR section 9 and PERB' s severance
regulations, however: the proof
of
support requirement. While PERB regulations only require
a showing of 30 percent support within the new unit to be established, ERR section 9.A
requires a showing of majority support (50 percent+ 1) "within the requested modified
representation unit." It is unclear from the language of section 9.A itself whether the employee
10

organization must establish majority support within the unit from which the classifications
would be severed or only within the new unit proposed for the severed classifications.
The complaint alleged that the County informed UAPD that a petition to sever
classifications and place them in a new unit required proof of majority support within the unit
from which the classifications would be severed. The evidence did not establish that the
County made such a representation to UAPD. In the record, the only mentions of the majority
support requirement by the County occur in connection with the ERR's decertification rule,
section I I .A. Thus, we conclude that the County has not interpreted the language "within the
requested modified representation unit" in section 9 .A to mean the entire bargaining unit prior
to severance. 6
Nor do we find ERR section 9.A unreasonable because it requires a showing of
majority support rather than the 30 percent support required by PERB Regulation 61210(b).
When examining whether a local agency rule adopted pursuant to MMBA section 3507,
subdivision (a) is reasonable, PERB's inquiry is not whether a different rule would be more
reasonable or whether the rule is reasonable when measured against an arbitrary standard.
Rather, the question is whether the rule "is consistent with and effectuates the purposes of the
express provisions of the MMBA." (City of San Rafael (2004) PERB Decision No. 1698-M,
citing International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 v. City of Gridley (1983)
34 Cal.3d 191.)
The majority support requirement in ERR section 9.A is distinguishable from the
unreasonable majority requirements in County of Imperial (2007) PERB Decision No. 1916-M
and Service Employees International Union v. Superior Court (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1390. In
In light of this conclusion, we need not decide whether a local rule requiring an
employee organization to establish majority support for severance within the entire pre-
severance bargaining unit would violate the MMBA.
11

County of Imperial, supra, the County's local rules required that at least 50 percent of
bargaining unit employees cast votes in a representation election for the election to be valid.
The Board held the rule was unreasonable because MMBA section 3507.1, subdivision (a)
explicitly calls for an election to be won by a majority of votes actually cast. In Service
Employees International Union, supra, the court's local rules required proof of majority
support to obtain a decertification election. (89 Cal.App.4th at p. 1394.) The court held the
rule was unreasonable because it required a greater showing of support to get an election than
it did to actually win the election. (Id. at p. 1395.)
Unlike the majority requirements in the above cases, the majority support requirement
in ERR section 9.A is not a prerequisite to an election; instead, it is the sole means of
determining employee support for a unit modification. Thus, an employee organization need
not establish a higher threshold of support than it would need to ultimately prevail on its
petition. Moreover, PERB regulations for severance under the Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA),7 Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA),8 and
Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)9 require a showing of majority support among the employees in
the proposed new bargaining unit. We therefore conclude that the majority support
requirement in ERR section 9 .A, as applied to a severance petition, is not contrary to the
MMBA and thus constitutes a reasonable local rule. 10
7 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. PERB Regulations
33050(b) and 33700(a) govern proof of support for a severance petition under EERA.
8 HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq. PERB Regulations
51030(b) and 51680(a) govern proof of support for a severance petition under HEERA.
9 The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. PERB Regulation
40200(b) governs proof of support for a severance petition under the Dills Act.
10 We express no opinion on whether the majority support requirement is reasonable as
applied to any other type of petition.
12

Additionally, the difference in proof of support requirements between ERR section 9.A
and PERB Regulation 6121 O(b) does not place an unreasonable burden on an employee
organization seeking to sever classifications from an established County bargaining unit. For
these reasons, we conclude that ERR section 9 is the functional equivalent of PERB's MMBA
severance regulations and therefore ERR section 9, and not PERB regulations, applies to the
severance petition in this case.
UAPD argues that ERR section 9 is unreasonable because the ultimate decision on a
petition filed under that section is made by the County Board of Supervisors. To support this
argument, UAPD relies heavily on Baxter's testimony that Human Resources Director Crown
told him during a phone conversation that "it was not in their best interest to allow this." This
statement is arguably uncorroborated hearsay that cannot support a factual finding. 11 However,
even if the statement is true, it does not indicate that the board of supervisors cannot or will not
make a fair and objective decision on UAPD's petition. First, UAPD failed to establish that
Crown was speaking on behalf of the board when he made the statement. Second, the
statement was made in response to Baxter's request that the County process the petition
"informally" and Crown followed the statement with a comment that UAPD would have to
follow the ERR rules. Taken in context, the statement does not establish bias on the part of the
board of supervisors.
UAPD also points out that, because the board of supervisors has never held a hearing
on an ERR section 9 petition, there is no "track record or body of law" for the board to follow.
Among agencies subject to the MMBA, it is common for the final decision on representation
11 PERB Regulation 32176 states, in relevant part, "Hearsay evidence is admissible but
shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection
in civil actions." Crown did not testify at the hearing and it does not appear that any hearsay
exception applies to the statement attributed to him by Baxter.
13

issues to be made by the local agency's governing board. (E.g., County
of
Monterey (2004)
PERB Decision No. 	1663-M [under county's local rules, the board
of
supervisors makes a
final and binding decision on the appropriateness
of
a proposed bargaining unit]; see County
of
Ventura (2009) PERB Decision No. 2067-M [under county's local rules, ultimate decision on
unit determination petition made by county civil service commission].) Nothing in the record
establishes that the County Board
of
Supervisors lacks the ability to make a reasoned decision
on a section 9 petition that comes before it for hearing. Accordingly, we find no basis for
declaring ERR section 9 unreasonable on the grounds urged by UAPD.
2.
	The County's Application
of
ERR section 9.A to the Severance Petition
Having found that ERR section 9 is a reasonable local rule, that it allows for severance
of
classifications from an established unit, and that it applies to the severance petition in this
case, we turn to whether the County reasonably applied the rule to the petition. The County
denied the petition for failure to comply with the requirement in ERR section 9.A that a unit
modification petition be filed by an employee organization or an Exclusively Recognized
Employee Organization. To qualify as an "employee organization" under the ERR, the
organization must have been verified by the County pursuant to ERR section 7. To qualify as
an "Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization" under the ERR, the organization must
have been certified by the County pursuant to ERR section l 0. UAPD did not seek verification
by the County until November 6, 2008. Therefore, it was not a verified employee organization
when the petition was filed on October 17, 2008. Moreover, the petition was not filed by
UAPD itself but by a group
of
employees, who also were not, and could not be, a verified
employee organization. Therefore, the County properly denied the petition for failure to
comply with ERR section 9.A.
14

UAPD nonetheless argues that the County used the verification requirement to deny the
petitioners' representation rights. 	Specifically, UAPD asserts that "once the UAPD was
verified the petition should have been activated by the County or the County should have told
the UAPD to refile in its own name." Though the County could have taken either of those
actions, there was no legal requirement that it do so. The County was not obligated to process
a petition that had been rejected earlier on proper grounds, nor was the County required to
solicit a new petition from UAPD. Consequently, this argument is without merit.
3. 	The County's Application of ERR section 11.A to the Severance Petition
The complaint also alleged that the County's denial of the petition for failure to comply
with the majority support requirement in ERR section 11.A violated the MMBA. The ALJ
concluded that section 11, the decertification provision, did not apply because the petitioners
were not seeking to decertify OCEA as the exclusive representative of the entire Healthcare
Professionals bargaining unit. UAPD argues on appeal that, because the petitioners listed
section 11.A as one basis for their severance petition, the ALJ was required to rule on the
reasonableness of that section. We disagree.
In County of Orange (2006) PERB Decision No. 1868-M, the Board held that a party
lacks standing to challenge a local rule when the employer has neither "applied nor enforced"
the rule to that party's detriment within the six months prior to the filing of the charge. 	The
Board reasoned that such a standing requirement is necessary to ensure stability in local labor-
management relations by preventing local rules from being perpetually vulnerable to challenge.
Here, the County denied the severance petition based in part on the petition's failure to
comply with ERR section 11 	Thus, unlike in County of Orange, supra, 	this case the
County actually applied the challenged local rule to the petition. Nonetheless, the rule was not
applied to UAPD's detriment because the petitioners did not intend to decertify OCEA as the
15

exclusive representative of the entire Healthcare Professionals bargaining unit. A party cannot
be harmed by the denial of something it did not seek in the first place. We therefore conclude
that UAPD lacks standing to challenge ERR section 11.A.
Furthermore, to allow a party to challenge a local rule that it never intended to invoke
would prnvide a means of circumventing the Board's ruling in County of Orange, supra, by
allowing a party to file a representation petition solely for the purpose of obtaining standing to
challenge a local rule. Such "sham" petitions would not serve to promote stability in local
labor-management relations.
ORDER
The complaint and underlying unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CE-518-M are
hereby DISMISSED.
Members McKeag and Wesley joined in this Decision.
16